final inception report - united nations development … · web viewsolar panel micro-credit...

PIMS 4434 INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS IN TURKEY, WITH DEMONSTRATION IN

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FORESTS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION

Short Title:

Integrated Forest Management

INCEPTION REPORT

Submitted in May 2014

Approved in July 2014

Addresses:

MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS

Söğütözü No: 14/E ANKARA

GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF FORESTRY

Yüzüncüyıl Premises: İşçi Blokları Mahallesi Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi 51/B Yüzüncüyıl Çankaya ANKARA

Ministry Premises: Söğütözü No: 14/E ANKARA

TOBB (İkiz Kuleler-Twin Towers) Premises: TOBB-Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:252 (Eskişehir Yolu 9. Km) 06530 ANKARA

UNDP TURKEY

United Nations Development Programme

UN House, Birlik Mah. 415. Cad. No. 11, 06610 Çankaya/ANKARA

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Land UseAPR/PIR Annual Project Review/ Project Implementation ReportsAWOP Annual Wildfire Operating PlansCLC Corine Land CoverCPMF Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean ForestsDD Nature AssociationDHKD Turkish Association for Protection of NatureDKM Nature Conservation CenterENVANIS Inventory and Statistical DatabaseFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFED Forest Enterprise DirectorateFIS Project Forest Information System ProjectGDF General Directorate of ForestryGDNCNP General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National ParksGDPNV The General Directorate of Protection of Natural ValuesGESIS Solar panel micro-credit programmeIR Inception ReportLULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change of ForestryLULUCF GPG LULUCF Good Practice GuidanceMENA region Middle East and North Africa regionMoFWA Ministry of Forest and Water AffairsMRV Measurable, Reportable, VerifiableNAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation ActionNCCAP National Climate Change Action PlanNCCS Turkey’s National Climate Change StrategyNIR National Inventory ReportsNWFPs Non-wood forest productsORKOOP The Central Union of Turkish Forestry CooperativesORKOY Forest Village Relations DepartmentPA Protected AreaPF Protected ForestPMU Project Management UnitQPR Quarterly Progress ReportSFM Sustainable forest managementSFM C&I Sustainable Forest Management Criteria and IndicatorsUNDP CO United Nations Development Programme Country OfficeUNDP RTA United Nations Development Programme Regional Technical AdvisorUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeWWF Turkey World Wide Fund Turkey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INCEPTION PROCESS.....................................2

1.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................2

1.2. The Inception Phase.............................................................................................................9

1.3. CEO Endorsement Document Update...............................................................................11

1.4. Project Document Update..................................................................................................11

1.5. Changes in the Project Environment..................................................................................12

1.5.1. Changes in the Price Level.............................................................................................12

1.5.2. Changes in Legal and Policy Context.............................................................................12

1.5.3. Changes in Risk Assessment..........................................................................................12

1.5.4. Changes in Co-financing Arrangements.........................................................................12

1.5.5. Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................................13

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION......................................................16

2.1. Instutional Arrangements...................................................................................................16

2.1.1. Project Steering Committee............................................................................................16

2.1.2. PSC Structure, Duties and Responsibilites.....................................................................16

2.1.3. PSC Meetings..................................................................................................................18

2.2. Project Management Unit (PMU)......................................................................................19

3. LOGFRAME AND WORKPLAN.......................................................................................27

3.3. Annual Workplan and Budget for 5 years.........................................................................27

3.4. Monthly Workplan for 2014..............................................................................................27

3.5. PROJECT FINANCING....................................................................................................27

3.6. OTHER ISSUES................................................................................................................27

3.6.1. Project Title.....................................................................................................................27

3.6.2. Geographic Scope of the Project.....................................................................................27

3.6.3. Project Language............................................................................................................28

3.7. Project Implementation Guidelines for Project Partners...................................................28

3.7.1. Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................................28

3.7.2. Reporting.........................................................................................................................28

3.7.3. Visibility.........................................................................................................................29

3.7.4. Procurement Procedures.................................................................................................29

ANNEXES................................................................................................................................30

Annex 1: Inception Workshop Report......................................................................................31

Annex 2: Detailed Project Workplan and Budget for five years............................................135

Annex 3: ATLAS Budget for year of 2014............................................................................140

Annex 4: Completed and Draft Terms of Reference for PMU...............................................143

Annex 5: Site Information Sheet.............................................................................................156

LIST of TABLES

Table 1: Changes in the Project Document............................................................................11

Table 2: Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan..................................................................14

Table 3: Project Steering Committee Members.......................................................................17

Table 4: Project Management Unit.........................................................................................23

Table 5: Project Assurance Unit..............................................................................................23

LIST of FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Organigram ..................................................................................................24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this Inception Report (IR) is to provide guidance to the operationalization of the project, and to set up the project structure. The IR is based on the Request for CEO Endorsement and the project document signed by UNDP Turkey, the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are slight differences between these two documents.

This IR updates the information given in the project document; presents a time schedule for the entire project period; presents a detailed work plan and budget for the first year of the project; describes the institutional linkages and management and coordination mechanisms; updates changes in the project environment and risks; presents project implementation guidelines for project partners, and revises the detailed budget and some of the indicators of success for the outcomes of the project. Activity details are described in the report together with institutional responsibilities, budget and the time schedule for implementation.

The project activities carried out in the project inception phase are also listed in this IR.

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INCEPTION PROCESS

1.1. Introduction

The Government of Turkey and UNDP have been working in collaboration in the integration of environmental and sustainable development principles into national and regional development plans. As per the agreed Country Program Action Plan between UNDP and the Governmet of Turkey, covering the period 2011-15, UNDP in environment and sustainable development cooperation will work to enhance national capacities and promote (a) mainstreaming sustainability principles, environment, climate change and energy efficiency and renewable energy into sectoral policies, plans and programmes at national, regional and local levels, (b) climate change adaptation and mitigation and carbon trading at national, regional and local levels, and (c) expanding access to environmental and energy services for the poor, vulnerable groups and others requiring special attention.

Turkey’s National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), which was approved by the Higher Planning Council Decision of May 03, 2010, sets forth national strategy, main principles, targets and an action plan related to negotiations, technology transfer, finance, capacity building, public awareness and education and infrastructure and adaptation strategy to climate change. Within the scope of land use and forestry, the strategy deals with afforestation and protection measures and research and development actions in the short term; national reforestation mobilisation and biomass-based energy production in the medium term, and; increasing green belt and establishing protected areas in metropolitan areas in the long term.

The present project supports implementation of the following strategic goals of the National Climate Change Strategy:

“Status of forestry in Turkey is assessed focusing on deforestation and forest degradation, which have critical importance in terms of mitigating climate change”;

“Scientific studies will be carried out to assess climate change impacts on forest ecosystems and to identify potential adaptation strategies in this regard, and policies will be developed based on these studies”; and

“A central geographic information system shall be established for all land use classes in Turkey in order to prepare the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and National Inventory Report in line with guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The project is also in line with the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP), which was developed with technical assistance from UNDP and adopted by the Government in July 2011. The recommendations of the NCCAP point to the need to develop a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) in the forest sector, as well as a carbon assessment

methodology and related demonstration activities. In this regard, the Government of Turkey submitted a request to COP 16 (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/MISC.8) which reiterated its self-identification as a developing country for the purposes of carbon trading mechanisms. In response, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) issued the following decision at COP-16: “the COP Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention to continue consideration of these issues with a view to promoting access by Turkey to finance, technology and capacity-building in order to enhance its ability to better implement the Convention.” Turkey is thus fully eligible for support in the development and implementation of NAMAs. However, a successful forest sector NAMA will require an effective carbon assessment methodology, database, institutional capacities and demonstration activities. This makes this project strategy highly relevant. The project will establish the technical know-how and management framework needed to implement mitigation activities in the Mediterranean forests.

The project builds upon lessons learned and good practices identified under the completed WB/GEF Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project (BNRMP) which aimed at addressing systemic areas to be improved that compromise effectiveness of the national system of protected areas such as deficiencies in the Environment Law, Range Law, Hunting Law, and Tourism Encouragement Law. The proposed project will further advance work of the BNRMP by expanding protection in Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Further, the project is additional to the current UNDP-GEF MSP initiative focused on expanding protection around the Kure National Park. Kure’s main habitats include old-growth coniferous, chestnut and boxwood forests, interspersed with grasslands and karsts. This project addresses conservation needs in a different forest community—facing a different menu of threats (e.g. unsustainable fire wood collection and wild-fires are characteristic of the Mediterranean coast, while Kure suffers from encroachment of infrastructure, commercial overharvesting, conversion of land to agriculture, and the discharge of municipal solid waste and waste-water). The preparation and implementation of the GEF project is coordinated with FAO sub-regional office in Ankara, the GIZ-funded regional program “Adapting forest policy conditions to climate change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region” and Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF) working under Silva Mediterranea of FAO. The GEF project will benefit from rich expertise of this GIZ program and the Silva Mediterranea network, in the design of policies and tools for multiple-use forest management. It will benefit also from its cooperation with ‘Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests’ under SilvaMediterranea of FAO that is a multi-country initiative promoting networking among experts and decision-making in the Mediterranean forest region where UNDP Turkey is a partner.

The project is a logical extension to a number of key initiatives undertaken by UNDP in Turkey. UNDP Turkey, General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Nature Conservation Center, Chamber of Forest Engineers and WWF-Turkey have collaborated since 2008 in the related arenas of forest protected areas, sustainable forest management, and climate change under several projects including UNDP-GEF project “Enhancing coverage and management effectiveness of the subsystem of forest protected

areas in Turkey’s national system of protected areas”. In 2012, UNDP Turkey and GDF were awarded a new project by the British Embassy to enhance GDF’s capacity on forest and water relations in the context of Sustainable Forest Management with focus on climate change, disaster risk management and afforestation/reforestation programmes. With respect to climate change and forestry, UNDP Turkey is playing a leading role in the preparation of the national climate change strategies. Inter alia, UNDP is supporting the development of the National Climate Change Action Plan, development of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) for the forestry sector, and initiatives aimed at mainstreaming gender and democratic governance into climate change strategies. In recognition of the substantial contribution that UNDP has made towards sustainable forest management, the Government of Turkey has requested UNDP to develop a programmatic approach to SFM; melding Government and donor resources to advance sustainable forest management. This is a product of the afore-mentioned activities between the Government and UNDP country office.

The project is fully in line with the Strategic Plan of the General Directorate of Forestry for the periods of 2010 - 2014, and 2013 – 2017.

Finally, the project will contribute to the Government’s efforts to create a bio-geographically representative national system of protected areas, as codified in the National Biodiversity Action Plan (2008). It will likewise help Turkey meet the protected area targets laid out in the Global Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020. The project also advances the country’s commitments under the Gift to the Earth declaration, whereby the Government pledged to extend PAs in nine identified forest landscapes, currently under-represented within the PA estate, five of which are within the Mediterranean forest directorates covered under this project.

Forests cover about 27 percent of Turkey (21.2 million ha). Turkey’s Mediterranean forests (hereafter also referred to as ‘the project area’) cover an area of 9.4 million hectares in total, extending from the southwest of Turkey to the Amanos Mountains in the east of the country (see Map 1). The project area is dominated by the Taurus Mountains, which extend from west to east in four main chains: Western Taurus Mountains, Middle Taurus Mountains, Eastern Taurus Mountains and Amanos Mountains. Aladağlar (3756 m.) is the highest point of the Taurus Mountain ranges. Structurally, these are predominantly coniferous forests, accompanied by maquis formations along the coastal areas. Coverage of deciduous forests is less than five per cent. The Mediterranean forests are moderately fragmented due to past logging activities, yet in some parts (especially in the southernmost regions) relatively large continuous forest tracts remain. Mediterranean forests are listed as one of the global biodiversity hotspots of the world1 due to their exceptional biodiversity richness. Approximately five per cent of the flora of Mediterranean Basin is endemic2.

1Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000)2Myers, N. Threatened biotas: hotspots in tropical forests. The Environmentalist 8, 178–208 (1988).

Map 1: The project area and pilot Forest Enterprise Directorates (FED) from west to east (Koycegiz FED, Gazipasa FED, Gulnar FED, Pos FED, Andirin FED)

The mountain forests of the Mediterranean region have some of Turkey’s oldest trees (500-1,000 years old). These forests constitute the largest forest carbon repository in West Asia and the second largest in Southern Europe3. They store an estimated 304 tCO2/ha in above-ground biomass, and 54 tCO2/ha below ground; under natural conditions, their net annual sequestration rate is 7 tCO2/ha/year4. The total carbon pool in Turkey’s Mediterranean forests is currently estimated at over two billion tC5. Illicit logging, fires, and pests cause annual sequestration rates to fluctuate: in 1990 the forests were a 41.7 million tCO2 net sink; by 2000, the net forest sink increased to 62.3 million tCO26, remaining stable or slightly increasing for the next several years before going down in 2006; this was followed by a slight increase in the period 2007-2008 due to the introduction of controls on logging; but fell sharply in 2009 and 2010 due to widespread forest fires.

Turkey’s Mediterranean forests are important for their biodiversity due to woody species richness, habitat diversity, wildlife, butterfly species richness, plant species richness and the existence of enclaves7. Turkish Caucasus and Mediterranean areas support the most diverse forest ecosystems in Turkey8. In particular, the Taurus Mountains, harboring Turkey’s

3Based on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 by FAO, and hence based on FAO’s definition of forests.4 Quantifying Carbon Budgets Of Conifer Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems. By Fatih Evrendilek, et.al. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment V. 1195 Calculated on the basis of data presented in the Report of the UNFCCC on the in-depth review of the First National Communication of Turkey. No precise direct calculations are available.6 The First National Communication of Turkey attributes this to a slow-down in rural development7Ülgen, H., Zeydanlı, U. 2008. Orman ve Biyolojik Çeşitlilik. Doğa Koruma Merkezi. Ankara.8 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000), Gil P.R., Mittermeier R.A., Hoffmann M., Pilgrim J., Goettsch-Mittermeier C., Lamoreux J. and Da Fonseca G.A. 2004. Hotspots revisited. CEMEX, Mexico City.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Fatih+Evrendilek

Mediterranean forest ecosystems within the project area, are accepted as centers of plant endemism9.

Coniferous forests and maquis formations are the main forest types within the project area. Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (1000-1800 m), Cedrus libani (900-1800 m), Abies cilicica (1500-1800 m), Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus foetidissima (1700-2000 m). Cedrus libani is an eastern Mediterranean endemic, with its main distribution and the most intact forests in the project area. Abies cilicica subsp. cilicica is another endemic taxa distributed in the Eastern Mediterranean part of Turkey. According to Zohary10, more than 40 additional sclerophyllus species contribute to the maquis formation. Dominant species of the maquis formations are Arbutus andrachne, Laurus nobilis, Myrtus communis, Olea europaea var. sylvestris, Phillyrea latioflia, Pistacia lentiscus, P. terebinthus, Styrax officinalis, Quercus coccifera, Q. infectoria and Myrtus communis

Given the small percentage of deciduous forests (less than five per cent) within the project area, these should be considered a significant element of forest biodiversity due to their contribution to habitat diversity. Dominant deciduous species include: hornbeam Carpinus orientalis, hop hornbeam Ostrya carpinifolia, oaks (Quercus cerris, Q. vulcanica, Q. pubescens, Q. robur, Q. libani, Q. trojana, Q. petrea pinnatiloba), and many maple species(Acer hyrcanum, A. platonoides, A. campestre, A. monspessulanum). In the Western Taurus Mountains, the most prominent deciduous formation is an endemic forest formed by the Liquidambar orientalis, locatedin the floodplain areas of Köyceğiz.

Within any forest landscape, there are certain areas that have high conservation value and need to be protected. Other areas may be suffering from threats such as pests and fires; still other locations may contain economic forests where silvicultural improvements can help to enhance carbon stocks. When implemented jointly as part of single district forest plans, measures to address each of the above needs will contribute to integrity of forest within an entire forest district, and hence to its long-term resilience to natural and anthropogenic threats, and have maximum effect for biodiversity and climate.

The project will help to demonstrate a model for integration of carbon emission avoidance / carbon sequestration measures and protected areas in forest landscape management over a total area of 450,000 ha. It will promote policy, regulatory and institutional changes to enable both the success of the demonstration efforts as well that of a larger-scale replication across Turkey’s Mediterranean forests.

The project objective is to promote an integrated approach to management of forests in Turkey, demonstrating multiple environmental benefits in high conservation value forests in the Mediterranean forest region. More particularly, the project will demonstrate approaches to

9Boulos L., Miller, A.G. & Mill, R.R. 1994. South West Asia and the Middle East in Davis, S.D., Heywood and V.H., Hamilton, A.C. (eds), Centers of Plant Diversity. Information Press, Oxford.

10Zohary, M. 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East, 2 vols. Fischer, Sttutgart, and Sweets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.

generating, measuring, reporting on and verifying carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits generated through this integrated approach at five Mediterranean forest sites. It will then build on these results through the development of a forest sector NAMA covering Turkey’s Mediterranean forests. Laying the foundation for leveraging and scaling up of the project’s demonstration results is thus an important component of the project’s strategy—one that is further made possible by a strengthened enabling environment.

Overall, the project support has been designed to address areas to be improved while building on and filling gaps in essential baseline areas in order to achieve the project objective and contribute to the long-term objective. The project includes the following three interdependent components: Component 1 - Policy and institutional framework for integrated forest management

within landscape, Component 2 – Implementation of forest-based GHG mitigation and carbon sequestration

tools within landscape, Component 3 – Strengthening protection of high conservation value forests in

Mediterranean landscape.

The project operates at several geographic levels. Interactions among these levels—and thence amongst the project components—constitute an important element of the project’s logic. From top down, the levels are as follows:

National level: An enhanced national-level enabling environment—including policies, regulations, capacities and institutions for integrated forest management—is the target of Component 1. Outputs implemented here are essential to improve the areas both to site-level demonstration work as well as to broader Mediterranean level replication efforts.

Mediterranean forest level: While there are several possible definitions of the area described by the term ‘Mediterranean forest region’ of Turkey, for the purposes of the project, the area is defined as an area of 9.4 million hectares in total, extending from the southwest of Turkey to Amanos Mountains in the east of the country. Map 1 shows the Mediterranean forest definition used by the project, i.e., the project area. This region is herein defined as ‘the project area’ and represents the target area for replication of the project’s approach. The primary vehicle for replication will be a Mediterranean forest sector NAMA.11 The NAMA will be developed under Component 1, based on carbon-related information and inputs from Component 2 and other multiple benefit- (particularly biodiversity) related lessons and strategies developed under Component 3.

Demonstration site level: Five carefully selected demonstration sites, totaling 651,921 ha, represent the geographic boundaries for Component 2 and portions of Component 3. Administratively, these areas are managed as Forest Enterprise Districts (FEDs). Given the substantial size of each FED, their ecologically driven boundaries and the fact that they are

11Forest carbon markets represent additional possible vehicles for gaining verification and financial compensation for carbon benefits in particular.

only partially forested12, these pilot sites provide the project’s primary venue for demonstrating a landscape approach to managing for multiple benefits. Carbon benefits accrued under Component 2 will be measured and verified at this scale, while buffer zones and corridors for protected forests defined under Component 3 will be planned for under FED management plans. Finally, inter-sectoral coordination with productive sectors will largely play out at the level of FEDs.

The five pilot demonstration FEDs were selected based on the following criteria:Enhanced carbon sequestration potential: FED should have red pine forests with first grade site quality index, growing on 30 per cent or less slope, and deciduous forests suitable for coppice management, made up of species with high growth rate and suitable for 10 years of management periods, growing on 30 per cent or less slope.Biodiversity significance: Existence of high nature value areas in the FED, including species dependent on active conservation.Enhancing carbon sequestration capacity via species selection in stand level: FED should have red pine forests that bear mixed stands of red pine with black pine, juniper, fir and oak.Socio-economic practices of forest villagers: FED should include forest villages which is highly depend on the forest resources, forest labor income, non-wood forest products. IT is also desired that forest cooperatives in these villages should be open minded and ready to consider new recommendations.Enhancing carbon sequestration capacity via afforestation: FED should have afforestation areas established at least 51 years ago, afforestation area established after 1st of January 1990 and eroded areas where erosion control studies may be conducted.

Protected forest level: Under Component 3, areas of globally significant biodiversity within the demonstration sites / FEDs will be identified as ‘protected forests’ and be subject to a more conservation-oriented management system, based on regulations developed under Component 1. These areas together cover 79,960 ha.

The project demonstration FEDs, their biodiversity values, and baseline and project carbon scenarios are described in detail in Annex 5 (Site Data Sheets).

12Total area with crown cover > 10% is 264,619 ha, or 40.6% of the combined demonstration site area.

1.2. The Inception Phase

The project inception phase, starting with signing of project document in August 2013 and ending with approval of IR in July 2014, marks the launch of the implementation of the UNDP/GEF project “Integrated Forest Management”.

Since the CEO Endorsement Document was approved on 28 December 2012, process for approving the Project Document was started with an official Local Project Appraisal Committee meeting held on 1 February 2013, with participation of representatives from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Development, Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs, General Directorate of Forestry, and UNDP Turkey Country Office.

Project Document prepared in line with the CEO Endorsement Document was improved during the project approval process, lasting for 6 months between February and July 2013, with inputs from Ministry of Development and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Thus far, the following major activities have been performed: The Approval of CEO Endorsement Document Letter was shared with Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Development, Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs, and General Directorate of Forestry with an invitation to the Local Project Appraisal Committee Meeting.

The Local Project Appraisal Committee Meeting was held on 1 February 2013.

A technical meeting with participation of Ministry of Development and General Directorate of Forestry was held on 6 February 2013 to improve and update the Project Document.

The Local Project Appraisal Committee Meeting notes shared with all participants on 19 February 2013.

An updated version of the Project Document was prepared and shared with Ministry of Development by General Directorate of Forestry on 20 February 2013.

An official letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Ministry of Development and Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs for approval of the Project Document was sent on 4 March 2013.

Delegation of Authority letter was recieved for the Project, PIMS 4434 , Atlas Award 00070163, Output ID 00084294, and duly cleared in accordance with UNDP and GEF procedures on 5 March 2013.

Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs and General Directorate of Forestry sent an official letter for approval of the project on 25 March 2013.

A side event on the project organized by Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs, GDF, and UNDP on 16 April 2013, during 10th Session of UNFF held in İstanbul.

A meeting between Ministry of Development and General Directorate of Forestry was organized on 2 May 2013 to receive inputs from the Ministry of Development to update the Project Document before the letter of Ministry of Development to be sent to Ministry of Foreign Affairs for approval of the project.

Updated Project Document with inputs recieved in the meeting held on 2 May 2013 was prepared shared with MoD by GDF.

A letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated on 15th of May, withattachment of inputs from Ministry of Development recieved by UNDP on 21 May 2013.

A new version of Project Document was prepared and sent to Ministry of Development by General Directorate of Forestry on 27 June 2013.

Letter to Ministry of Foreign Affairs signed by UNDP with all attachments of the latest Project Document as hardcopy and softcopy was delivered to Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 July 2013.

Letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated on 2 July 2013, with the latest ProDoc recived by Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs and Ministry of Development.

UNDP Turkey, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs signed the project document on 23 July 2013.

General Directorate of Forestrywas authorized as Executing Agency by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry on August 2013.

The project document was reviewed and translated into Turkish. Turkish-translated project document will be reviewed by PMU.

The information on the project was placed on the websites of both UNDP and GDF.

GDF designated the members of Project Steering Committee, Project Assurance Unit, Financial and Administrative Support Team, and Technical Support Team at national and local level. Names and titles of the members are available in Table 3 - 5.

Terms of Reference for a full-time project manager and a project associate was prepared and advertised at national scale.

Steering Committee Members were visited and informed about the projectand Inception Workshop.

Inception Workshop (IW) was held in Ankara on December 16-17, 2013 with 120 participants. Draft workplan and budget were prepared and presented to project partners in internal session of IW. Three group works were carried out with coordination of moderators where project outcomes were discussed and project

activities were further developed in the external session. Inception Workshop Report was prepared and shared with project partners/stakeholders. (Annex 1: Inception Workshop Report).

1.3. CEO Endorsement Document Update

No changes in the CEO Endorsement Document have occurred between the period of signing of the Project Document and Inception Workshop. Inputs received by Ministry of Development and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see details in 1.4. Project Document Update) was reflected to the Project Document, during the signing of the Project Document Process. Detailed activities were highlighted and included in the Project Document (see details in 1.4. Project Document Update) during Inception Workshop Process.

1.4. Project Document Update

The following changes were made in the Project Document. In cases where differences were found between the CEO Endorsement Document and the Project Document, the Project Document will be taken as valid one.

Table 1: Changes in the Project Document

Original Project Document

Change Explanation

1 Under project Strategy Section of the Project Document, at various sentences.

Words with “Barriers” was replaced with “Areas to be improved”, and words with “Lack of” was replaced with “need to be improved”

Change was made to improve the language of the project document in Turkish.

2 Page 28 of the Project Document, Under Output 2.3.

Two sentences were included: Sentence 1 “It will be highlighted that the microcredit fund has been provided by the GDF in all promotional and guidance documents for the microcredit scheme.” Sentence 2 “The capitalization of the microcredit fund will come from the Government. The management and distribution of these microcredits will be

To make it more concrete and understandable.

conducted according to the relevant regulations of GDF.”

3 New annex was included in the Project Document.

Annex S: Details of GDF Co-finance was included in the project document.


4 New annex was included in the Project Document.

Annex T: Indicative work plan and budget for 5 years was included in the project document.


1.5. Changes in the Project Environment

1.5.1. Changes in the Price Level

No changes in the price level, legal and institutional context have occurred since the submission of the FSP Proposal to GEF.

1.5.2. Changes in Legal and Policy Context

No changes in the policy, legal and institutional context have occurred since the submission of the FSP Proposal to GEF.

1.5.3. Changes in Risk Assessment

No changes in risk assessment have occurred since the submission of the FSP Proposal to GEF.

1.5.4. Changes in Co-financing Arrangements

There is one change in the co-financing arrangements requested by Ministry of Development since the submission of the FSP Proposal to GEF. Ministry of Development highlighted that according to the Turkish context, using of operating budget and investment budget of public agency and institutes shall be in line with Public Finance Management and Control Law. Since there is no differences regarding using of budget allocations from operating budget nor investment budget according to the so called Law, using GDF co-finance of the project will not be differentiated. In addition to this, since it is estimated that no cash transfer in terms of government co-financing to be made from GDF to UNDP in this project context, it is requested to amend type of co-finance from “grant” to “in-kind”.

Table 2: Changes in co-financing arrangements occurred during the signing of the project document (highlighted in red color)

Name of co-financier Type of co-financing Co-financing amount ($)

General Directorate of Forestry Grant In-kind 17,400,000General Directorate of Forestry In-kind 2,000,000UNDP Grant 640,000

100,000UNDP In-kind 180,000

720,000GIZ Grant 600,000WWF Turkey In-kind 150,000Nature Conservation Center Grant 150,000Chamber of Forest Engineers Grant 110,000Chamber of Forest Engineers In-kind 50,000The Central Union of Turkish Forestry Cooperatives

In-kind 50,000

Gold Standard Foundation In-kind 100,00021,430,000

1.5.5. Monitoring and Evaluation

No changes have occurred during project signing and inception workshop process. Project Monitoring and Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (UNDP-GEF RCU).

Table 2: Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget (US$) Time frameInception Workshop (IW) Project Manager

Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, General Directorate of Forestry, UNDP, UNDP-GEF

30,000 (based on experience of UNDP CO)

Held on 16-17 December 2013

Inception Report Project TeamProject Board, UNDP CO

None July 2014

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Results

Project Manager will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Cost to be covered by targeted survey funds.

Start, mid and end of project

Annual Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance

Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor ,Project Manager and M&E local expertMeasurements by Forest Enterprise Directors

TBD as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Cost to be covered by field survey budget.

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

APR/PIR Project TeamProject BoardUNDP-RTAUNDP-GEF

None Annually

QPR Project Team (including M&E Administrator) None QuarterlyProject Board meetings Project Manager None Following IW and annually thereafter.

Technical and periodic status reports

Project teamHired consultants as needed

15,000 TBD by Project team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Evaluation

Project teamProject BoardUNDP-GEF RCUExternal Consultants (evaluation team)

40,000 At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation Project team,Project Board, UNDP-GEF RCUExternal Consultants (evaluation team)

40,000 At the end of project implementation

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget (US$) Time frameTerminal Report Project team

Project BoardExternal Consultant

None At least one month before the end of the project

Audit UNDP-COProject team

18,000 Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP-CO, UNDP-GEF RCUGovernment representatives

None Yearly average one visit per year

TOTAL (indicative) COST(Excluding project and UNDP staff time costs)

143,000

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

2.1. Instutional Arrangements

The project is jointly executed by General Directorate of Forestry (GDF), on behalf of MoFWA, with UNDP being GEF Implementing Agency. Project partners are GIZ, Chamber of Forest Engineers, Central Union of Forest Cooperatives, Nature Conservation Center, WWF Turkey, The Gold Standard Foundation.

The project will be managed through three main bodies, namely Project Steering Committee, Project Assurance Team and Project Management Unit. The project management organogram is formed as shown in the Figure 1.

2.1.1. Project Steering Committee

2.1.2. PSC Structure, Duties and Responsibilites

PSC Structure

The Project Steering Committee (hereafter the Committee) of the UNDP/GEF Project “Integrated approach to management of forests in Turkey, with demonstration in high conservation value forests in the Mediterranean region” (hereafter the Project) is a high committee established to provide general guidance, supervision and support for the implementation of Project activities, and coordination among the related organizations.

The Committee, composed of 3 representatives, will be chaired by the MFWA Deputy Undersecretary. MoD and MFA are the natural partners of the PSC. Project partners will also be able to participate to the PSC as observers according to their roles identified in the project’s outputs. Details of committee members are given below in the Table 6.

Project Assurance Team and Project Management Unit members will participate to the PSC meetings, share information and undertake the secretariat works of the meetings. Committee members can delegate their powers to other people, after they notify the Project Executing Agency GDF, where such delegation shall be communicated at least one week before the meeting.

When deemed necessary, representatives of research institutions or other organizations will be invited to the meetings. The Observers have rights to be fully informed on the progress of the project implementation, to receive all information materials circulated at the committee meeting, to participate in debates and express their views during committee meetings. Committee members can ask experts to provide recommendations on project activities.

Table 3: Project Steering Committee Members

No Name-Surname Organization-Position PSC Duty1 İbrahim Çiftçi MoFWADeputy Undersecretary President2 İsmail Üzmez GDF – General Director Voting Member

4 Matilda Dimovska UNDP Turkey CO – Deputy Resident Representative Voting Member

Duties and Responsibilities

Committee will be responsible for:

I. Achieving co-ordination among the various government agencies,

II. Guiding the project implementation process to ensure alignment with national and local statutory planning processes, sustainable resource use, conservation policies, plans and conservation strategies,

III. Ensuring that activities are fully integrated between the other developmental initiatives in the region,

IV. Overseeing the work being carried out by the implementation units, monitoring progress and approving reports,

V. Overseeing project financial management and production of financial reports,

VI. Monitor the effectiveness of project implementation,

VII. Preparing regular report-backs for the represented Departments/Institutions,

VIII. Making decisions to overcome the problems in project implementation phases and providing effective implementation of these decisions,

IX. Approving project yearly work plans and budgets,

X. Appointing enough high quality staff in the Technical Committee and in the National MCPA Strategy and Action-Plan-Preparation Working Group,

XI. Providing support and sharing recommendations on national MCPA strategy and action plan proposals,

XII. Providing support for nation-wide dissemination of project targets.

PSC Secretariat

Committee secretariat will be carried out by the PMU. These will include agenda, meeting procedures, reporting to committee members, preparation and circulation of information to be

examined at the meetings, keeping minutes andreporting on the progress of project implementation. Decisions and minutes will be shared with members via formal letters.

Decisions and Minutes

Committee decisions shall be passed by an absolute, simple, majority of votes. Minutes shall summarize the important points of the meeting. The report of the meeting shall be distributed to each member via an official letter during the following two weeks of the meeting.

2.1.3. PSC Meetings

Call for Meeting and Agenda

PSC meetings will be chaired by the Committee Chairperson. All the correspondence will be coordinated by the GDF.

Meeting agendas shall be prepared by the secretariat. Agenda and annexes shall be sent to Committee members as an official letter 15 days before the meeting. Committee members may do recommendations on the agenda 10 days before the scheduled meeting.

Proposals for the agenda will be offered by the Committee. The Secretariat’s research, results, recommendations and reports shall be distributed to each member with the agenda.

When deemed necessary, Observers (project partners, representatives of other organizations, and scientists) can be invited the meetings.

Meeting Schedule

The PSC shall be led by the MFWA Deputy Undersecretary and shall regularly meet every six months unless urgent decision-making is necessary. The committee shall decide the meeting dates. The date and time of the meeting will be announced by an official letter two weeks before the meeting.

Draft Dates:

1. July, 2014

2. December, 2014

3. June, 2015

4. December, 2015

5. June, 2016

6. December, 2016

7. June, 2017

8. December, 2017

9. June, 2018

10. December, 2018

2.2. Project Management Unit (PMU)

The project management as well as coordination will be carried out by a PMU under the overall guidance of the PSC.

Project Management Unit (PMU) will be located in Ankara to ensure coordination among stakeholder organizations at central level and pilot sites during the project period.

The PMU will be composed of three bodies, as below:

GDF Administrative and Financial Support Team, to be composed of Foreign Relations, Education and Research Department, along with Strategy Development Department, relevant Regional and Forest Enterprise Directorates

GDF Technical Support Team, to be composed of relevant GDF Departments, Regional and Forest Enterprise Directorates

Project Coordination Team, is estimated to be composed of a Forestry Cluster Coordinator, an SFM Advisor, a Project Associate, a Site Level Coordination Assistant, a Project Finance Manager who will be contracted by UNDP CO.

GDF staff under Administrative and Financial Support Team with Technical Support Team will be assigned officially. The human resources expenditures of UNDP CO contractors, i.e. Forestry Cluster Coordinator, Project Associate, Site Level Coordination Assistant and Project Finance Manager will be covered by GEF funds. The human resources expenditures of GDF support team will be covered through GDF's contribution.

The PMU will be led by Forestry Cluster Coordinator. The Forestry Cluster Coordinator has the overall project responsibility. All PMU staff contracted under UNDP CO report to the Forestry Cluster Coordinator. All decisions will be coordinated by the Forestry Cluster Coordinator and will be approved by GDF Administrative and Financial Support Team Leader and UNDP before implementation. The Forestry Cluster Coordinator is responsible for implementing the project activities, and reports to UNDP and PMU.

More specifically, the role of the PMU will be to:

I. Implement the overall project management and monitoring according to UNDP rules on managing UNDP/GEF projects. This includes reparation and selection of the ToRs for the procurement of goods, business and consultancy, conduct the business management in coordination with UNDP, ensure that all announcements are published

on the websites of UNDP and of the Ministry, and cooperate with UNDP with regard to the management, conveyance and administration of the appointed consultants.

II. Ensure all project activities are implemented in a timely and effective manner, coordinating project partners, local management units and local working groups,

III. Facilitate communication and networking among key stakeholders,

IV. Deal with the organization and secretarial responsibilities of the meetings of the PSC.

2.2.1. Roles for project coordination

Project coordination will be performed by GDF Administrative and Financial Team Leader (GDF Team Leader) to be assigned by GDF, and Forestry Cluster Coordinator to be contracted by UNDP CO. Details of role for GDF Team Leader and Forestry Cluster Coordinator are as below:

2.2.2. Role of GDF Administrative and Financial Team Leader (GDF Team Leader)

The GDF Team Leader is assigned by GDF. S/He will be responsible for the administrative and financial coordination within GDF, based upon feedback received from the project coordinator. S/he will be responsible for coordination of GDF’s technical support to be conducted by GDF Technical Support Team.

More specifically, the role of the GDF Team Leader will be to:

Ensure the overall project administrative and financial support within GDF, according to the guidelines on managing UNDP/GEF projects, in line with UNDP rules, in close liaison with the Project Coordinator;

Ensure that project implementation is in line with the CEO Endorsement Document and GDF procedures;

Conduct progress and monitoring of outputs and outcomes as set out in the CEO Endorsement Document and the Inception Report, in close liaison with the Project Coordinator;

Ensure the planning, management, control and monitoring of the tasks of the project staff, of hired consultants, and of sub-contracted institutions takes place in close liaison with the Forestry Cluster Coordinator;

Facilitate communication and networking among project partners and key stakeholders;

Conduct the organizational details of PSC meetings; Approve the Terms of Reference for consultants and tender documents for sub-

contracted inputs with UNDP; Approve in connection with the UNDP the purchase of equipment, the conduct of

training programs, the implementation of other programs or action plans, budgetary issues, reports and other decisions;

Provide guidance to local management units at project sites; Deliver all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the

project; Coordinate GDF’s financial and administrative contribution as necessary for project

implementation; Ensure that proper accounting and all records related to co-financing (including both

management and service procurements) is maintained; Approve the personnel appraisal score cards of Forestry Cluster Coordinator with

UNDP CO. Coordinate technical inputs in the field of protected forests management; Coordinate GDF’s technical support team for ensuring timely technical contribution as

necessary for project implementation;

2.2.3. Role of Forestry Cluster Coordinator

The role of the Forestry Cluster Coordinator will be to:

Ensure successful coordination and implementation of the project in accordance with the stated outcomes and performance indicators in the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), UNDP Project Documents, and Partnership Framework Agreement between the Turkish Government and UNDP.

Provide coordination and support for the project with other projects, which will be developed and implemented by UNDP and GDF.

Supervise and coordinate the project to ensure its results are in accordance with the Project Document and the rules and procedures established in the UNDP Programming Manual,

Assume primary responsibility for daily project management – both organizational and substantive matters – budgeting, planning and general monitoring of the project

Ensure adequate information flow, discussions and feedback among the various stakeholders of the project;

Ensure adherence to the project’s work plan, (when required)prepare revisions of the work plan;

Assume overall responsibility for the proper handling of logistics related to project workshops and events;

Prepare, and agree with UNDP on the terms of reference for national and international consultants and subcontractors;

Guide the work of consultants and subcontractors and oversee compliance with the agreed work plan;

Assure technical coordination among consultants and contractors, Monitor the expenditures, commitments and balance of funds within the project budget

lines, and draft any project budget revisions; Assume overall responsibility for the meeting financial delivery targets set out in the

agreed annual work plans, reporting on project funds and related record keeping; Liaise with project partners so as to ensure their co-financing contributions are provided

within the agreed terms;

Assume overall responsibility for reporting on project progress vis-à-vis indicators in the log frame;

Undertake any other actions related to the project as requested by UNDP or GDF.

Table 4: Project Management Unit

Duty Name-Surname Institution/UnitGDF Team Leader Ümit TURHAN GDF, Foreign Relations, Education and Research DepartmentForestry Cluster Coordinator Nuri ÖZBAĞDATLI UNDP Turkey

Table 5: Project Assurance Unit

Duty Name-Surname Institution/UnitGDF General Coordination Ali Fuat ÜNAL GDF, Deputy General DirectorUNDP Coordination Dr. Katalin ZAİM UNDP, Climate Change and Environment Portfolio ManagerGDF Administrative Coordination Dr. Ahmet İPEK GDF, Head of Foreign Relations, Education and Research DepartmentGDF Financial Coordination Yüksel ERDOĞAN GDF, Head of Strategy Development Department

Table 6: GDF Support Team (Name-Surname may change according to the appointments in GDF)

Duty Name-Surname Institution/UnitPlanning Engineer İbrahim KIRKGEÇİT GDF, Kahramanmaraş Regional DirectoratePlanning Engineer Yunus AKGÜN GDF, Kahramanmaraş Regional DirectorateNWFP Engineer Eyüp ÜNALDI GDF, Kahramanmaraş Regional DirectorateForest Enterprise Dircctor Erol BİLMEZ GDF, Andırın Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Enterprise Sub-director Abdullah KOCA GDF, Andırın Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Engineer Abdurrahman SEZER GDF, Mersin Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Süleyman NAFİLE GDF, Mersin Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Semra TOKER GDF, Mersin Regional Directorate

Forest Enterprise Dircctor Hasan ASLAN GDF, Gülnar Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Enterprise Sub-director Ahmet ÇİMEN GDF, Gülnar Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Engineer Mehmet SOLAK GDF, Adana Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Önder HARMANCI GDF, Adana Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Bayram Ali CİVELEK GDF, Adana Regional DirectorateForest Enterprise Dircctor Cemal BUCAK GDF, Pos Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Enterprise Sub-director Sadullah ÜNAL GDF, Pos Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Engineer Salih YILMAZ GDF, Antalya Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Necmettin AY GDF, Antalya Regional DirectorateAgriculture Engineer Bengü ATALAY GDF, Antalya Regional DirectorateForest Enterprise Dircctor Halil KISACIK GDF, Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Enterprise Sub-director Bilal YÜKSEK GDF, Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Engineer Ahmet GENÇ GDF, Muğla Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Nevzat BORAN GDF, Muğla Regional DirectorateForest Engineer Celalettin SARIKAYA GDF, Muğla Regional DirectorateForest Enterprise Dircctor Ramazan USLU GDF, Köyceğiz Forest Enterprise DirectorateFocal Point Handan SARILI GDF, Köyceğiz Forest Enterprise DirectorateForest Engineer Ahmet GENÇ GDF, Köyceğiz Forest Enterprise DirectorateBranch Manager Muhammet SAÇMA GDF, Monitoring Forest Ecosystem BranchBranch Manager Kamuran BİRİNCİ GDF, Monitoring Forest Ecosystem BranchBranch Manager Galip Çağatay TUFANOĞLU GDF, Non-wood Forest Products and Services DepartmentBranch Manager Başar BAKIR GDF, Non-wood Forest Products and Services DepartmentDeputy Director of Department Musa KAYA GDF, Forest and Village Relations DepartmentForest Engineer Mehmet Emin ASLAN GDF, Forest and Village Relations DepartmentForest Engineer Umut Ahmet ŞEKERCAN GDF, Strategy Development DepartmentStatistician Elif ALIM GDF, Strategy Development DepartmentAgriculture Engineer Dr. Havva KAPTAN GDF, Soil Protection and Seed Improvement DepartmentAgriculture Engineer Berna BALKIZ GDF, Soil Protection and Seed Improvement DepartmentBranch Manager Ahmet YALVAÇ GDF, Reforestation DepartmentEngineer Serkan YAYLA GDF, Reforestation Department

Branch Manager Mehmet YAYCIOĞLU GDF, Nursery and Seed DepartmentBranch Manager Sibel DEMİRTAŞ GDF, Nursery and Seed DepartmentForest Engineer Salih AYAZ GDF, Forest Planning and Management DepartmentForest Engineer Emine ATAŞ GDF, Forest Planning and Management DepartmentForest Engineer F.Fatih ALBAYRAK GDF, Information System DepartmentGeology Engineer Sibel CENGİZ (Yedek) GDF, Information System DepartmentForest Engineer Mustafa EREN GDF, Enterprise and Marketing DepartmentForest Engineer M.Seyfettin ULUSOY GDF, Enterprise and Marketing DepartmentForest Engineer Cevher Anıl ARSLAN GDF, Combating with Forest Fire DepartmentForest Engineer Fuat AYDIN GDF, Combating with Forest Fire DepartmentForest Engineer Yılmaz GÜN GDF, Silviculture DepartmentForest Engineer Halil SOLAK GDF, Silviculture DepartmentPhysics Engineer Kıymet KELEŞ GDF, Foreign Relations, Education and Research DepartmentForest Engineer Şenay YILMAZ GDF, Foreign Relations, Education and Research Department

Figure1: Project Organigram

GDF Technical Support Team

Relavent DepatmentsRelavent Regional DirectoratesRelavent Forestry Directorates

GDF Administrative and Financial Support Team

Department of Foreign Relations, Education and Research,

Department of Strategy Development,

Relavent Regional Directorates

Relavent Forestry Directorates

Foresty Cluster Coordinator

- SFM Advisor Project Associate Site Coordination Assistant Project Finance Manager UNDP Project Support Team (*)

Project Consultants

Project Partners

MoD, MFA, ORKOOP, GIZ, OMO, WWF, DKM, GIZ,

GoldStandard

Voting MemberDeputy Resident Representative,

UNDP TurkeyMatilda Dimovska

PresidentDeputy Undersecretary, MoFWA

Mr. İbrahim ÇİFTÇİ

Voting MemberGeneral Director, GDF

Mr. İsmail ÜZMEZ

Project Steering Committee

Project Assurance UnitGDF General Coordination – Ali Fuat ÜNAL

UNDP Coordination(*) – Dr. Katalin ZAİM GDF Administrative Coordination – Dr. Ahmet IPEK

GDF Financial Coordination – Yüksel ERDOĞAN

UNDP-GEF Regional Office

Project Management Unit

* UNDP Project Support Team and UNDP Coordination might be redesigned in line with UNDP Change Management Process.

3. LOGFRAME AND WORKPLAN

No changes in the log-frame have occurred since the submission of the FSP Proposal to GEF.

3.1. Annual Workplan and Budget for 5 years

A work plan for five years (given in Annex 2) is arranged to help the PMU better coordination and implementation. The budget given here is the overall budget for the entire project period. The ATLAS Budget for 2014 is given in Annex 3.

3.2. Monthly Workplan for 2014

A monthly work plan for 2014 has been prepared and approved by GDF during Inception Workshop. Detail of the monthly work-plan for 2014 updated as given in Annex 3.

3.3. PROJECT FINANCING

The overall project budget is $28,550,000, being composed of a GEF grant of $7,120,000 and co-financing of $21,430,000. The detailed budget on output and activity level is given in the Annex 2.The ATLAS Budget for 2014 is given in Annex 3.

The PMU will record all co-funding contributions. No documents such as invoices, vouchers of payment, signed time sheets, etc are necessary to substantiate these records.

3.4. OTHER ISSUES

3.4.1. Project Title

It was agreed to use, as a short title, the name “Integrated Forest Management Project” (Entegre Orman Yönetimi Projesi) which is easy to understand both in the English and in the Turkish languages.

3.4.2. Geographic Scope of the Project

The project covers five forest enterprise directorates, which are:

I. Köyceğiz Forest Enterprise Directorate, Muğla Regional DirectorateII. Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise Directorate, Antalya Regional Directorate

III. Gülnar Forest Enterprise Directorate, Mersin Regional Directorate

IV. Pos Forest Enterprise Directorate, Adana Regional DirectorateV. Andırın Forest Enterprise Directorate, Kahramanmaraş Regional Directorate

3.4.3. Project Language

In line with GEF procedures, the official project language is English. All written communication will be set out and all reports will be prepared both in English and Turkish languages.

3.5. Project Implementation Guidelines for Project Partners

3.5.1. Monitoring and Evaluation

In addition to the monitoring and evaluation systems defined in the Approved Project Document, the monitoring and evaluation of project activities by the project management will be as follows:

1. The monitoring and evaluation of the project will be carried out through the PSC meetings to be held in every 6 months;

2. The PMU will meet regularly at least twice a month. It will evaluate the progress in the previous month and forecast what might be expected in the coming month.

3. The GDF Team Leader and the Project Coordinator are encouraged to visit the partners and to inform them about project developments.

4. The GDF Team Leader, the Project Coordinator and the Climate Change and Environment Programme Manager of UNDP Turkey Office will meet at least once in three months and evaluate progress in the project, suggesting solutions to any problems that may have arisen;

5. A regularly updated system will be developed to monitor project activities.

6. A regularly updated monitoring chart will be developed for such activities (in and outside the project) as are attended by project personnel (for example, who attended which activity and when, and what were the outputs?).

7. A detailed, annual calendar of the project activities will be drawn up and distributed to the project partners and relevant units on an official basis.

3.5.2. Reporting

In addition to monitoring and evaluating reports as defined in the approved project documents, there will be field reports, meeting reports, training reports, and reports on other activities within the scope of the project. Except for the basic reports prescribed in the project document, the language used in the reports will be Turkish, and reports will be translated into English when it is seen to be necessary by the PMU. Depending on the content, reports will be published on the project website, which will be open to public sharing, or through the intranet.

3.5.3. Visibility

The project communication/outreach plan will be prepared by a Communications Expert to be hired by PMU, to be approved by PSC. The rules for communication and visibility, in line with UNDP, GEF and GDF, will be prepared in the first year of the project.

3.5.4. Procurement Procedures

All purchases of goods and services funded by GEF’s contribution towards the project budget will be done according to UNDP rules. Some general outlines on the principles and processes are given at www.undp.org/procurement. Important procurements will be announced on UNDP (Turkey) and GDF websites. If needed, a bid evaluation committee will be comprised of 3 people who are members of UNDP (Turkey) and GDF.

Any purchase of goods and services funded by GDF through project co-funding will be affected according to such T.C. rules as are valid for MoFWA.

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Inception Workshop Report

Annex 2: Detalied Project Workplan and Budget for five years

Annex 3: Atlas Budget for year of 2014

Annex 4: Completed and Draft Terms of References for PMU

Annex 5: Site information sheets

Annex 1: Inception Workshop Report Details in Turkish

“YÜKSEK KORUMA DEĞERİNE SAHİP AKDENİZ ORMANLARINDA ÇOK YÖNLÜ ÇEVRESEL FAYDA YARATAN ENTEGRE YÖNETİMİ” PROJESİ

TEKNİK ÇALIŞTAYI RAPORU

Yer : ANKARA

Tarih : 16-17 Aralık 2013

Konu : Projenin yönetim yapısı, içeriği ve uygulama planı hakkında bilgilendirme ve ilk yıl için uygulama faaliyetlerinin detaylandırılması

Gündem:

GÜN SAAT GÜNDEM

BİR

İNC

İ GÜ

N –

16

AR

AL

IK 2

013

09:30 - 09:45 Kayıt

09:45 - 09:55 İstiklal Marşı

09:55 - 10:15

Açılış Konuşmaları

Dr. Katalin Zaim –Program Yöneticisi, UNDP Türkiye

Dr. Ahmet İpek – Dış İlişkiler Eğitim ve Araştırma Daire Başkanı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü

10:15 - 10:30Proje ve Başlangıç Çalıştayı Hakkında Bilgilendirme

Dr. Katalin Zaim – UNDP Türkiye

10:30 - 10:45Proje Yönetim Yapısı ve Proje Uygulama Süreci Hakkında Bilgilendirme

Ümit Turhan, Dış Kaynaklı Projeler Şube Müdür Vekili, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü

10:45 - 11:15Proje Mantıksal Çerçevesi, Hedefleri, Faaliyetleri Hakkında Bilgilendirme

Nuri Özbağdatlı, Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi Danışmanı, UNDP Türkiye

11:15 - 11:30 Kahve Arası

11:30 - 12:00Birinci Yıl Uygulama Planı (2014 Faaliyetleri, Bütçesi ve Uzmanlıklar Listesi)


12:00 - 12:15 Grup Çalışması Hakkında Bilgilendirme ve Grupların Oluşturulması

Grup 1 – Bileşen 1: Kurumsal ve Mevzuat Yapı, Kapasite Geliştirme ve Dış İlişkiler,

AKAKDO ve NAMA

Grup 2 – Bileşen 2: Orman Planlama, Yangın, Zararlılarla Mücadele, Silvikültür, Bilgi Sistemleri ve Orman Köylüleri ile İlişkiler

Grup 3 – Bileşen 3: Biyolojik çeşitlilik, odun dışı ürün değer zinciri ve ekoturizm

12:15 - 13:30 Öğle Yemeği

13:30 - 15:15

Grup Çalışması

Her grup 2014 faaliyetleri ve ilgili Daire Başkanlıkları bölümlerini inceleyerek alt faaliyetler hakkında katkı verecektir. Gruplara destek vermek için birer raportör ve kolaylaştırıcı belirlenecektir.


15:35 - 16:05 Grup 1 Sunum 15 dk sunum, 15 dk soru ve cevap



17:05 - 17:20Birinci Gün Kapanış

İKİN

Cİ G

ÜN

1

7 A

RA

LIK

20

13

10:00 - 11:00Grup Çıktıları Işığında 2014 Yılı Faaliyetleri, Bütçesi ve Uzmanlıklar Listesinin Sunulması



11:15 - 12:15 Genel Değerlendirme ve Kapanış

12:30 - 14:00

Öğle Yemeği

Proje hakkında bilgiOrman Genel Müdürlüğü ve UNDP Türkiye Ofisi işbirliği ile hazırlanıp GEF (Küresel Çevre Fonu) 5. Dönemi’ne sunulan proje GEF Konseyi tarafından Aralık 2012 yılında kabul görmüştür. Şubat 2013 yılında ulusal onay sürecine başlanan proje Ağustos 2013 yılında Dışişleri Bakanlığı, Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı ve UNDP Türkiye Ofisi tarafından imzalanarak resmi olarak başlatılmıştır. GEF kuralları gereği başlangıç çalıştayı ile hazırlanan projenin gözden geçirilmesi ve ilk yıl uygulama

faaliyetlerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla 16-17 Aralık 2013 tarihinde Teknik Başlangıç Çalıştayı organize edilmiştir.

Proje Türkiye’deki ormanların yönetiminde entegre bir yaklaşımın teşvik edilmesi yoluyla, Akdeniz orman bölgesinde yüksek koruma değerine sahip ormanların çok yönlü çevresel faydalarının ortaya çıkarılmasını amaçlamaktadır. Proje, Akdeniz Bölgesi’ndeki beş orman işletme müdürlüğünde entegre orman yönetimi yaklaşımı ile ortaya çıkan karbon, biyolojik çeşitlilik ve sosyo-ekonomik faydaların oluşturulması, ölçülmesi, raporlanması ve doğrulanması için yaklaşımlar sergileyecek ve elde edilen bu sonuçları TürkiyeAkdeniz ormanları için Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Eylemi (NAMA) geliştirilmesi yoluyla güçlendirecektir. Bu bakımdan projenin Bileşen 2 ve Bileşen3’te yapılacak pilot uygulamalar ile elde edilecek sonuçlarının güçlendirilmesi ve yaygınlaştırılması için ulusal boyutta bir temelin oluşturulması proje stratejisinin önemli bir parçasıdır.

Proje amacıAkdeniz orman bölgesindeki yüksek koruma değerine sahip ormanların çoklu çevresel faydalarının gösterilmesi yoluyla Türkiye’deki ormanların planlamasında bütüncül bir yaklaşımı teşvik etmektir. Bu amaç için üç bileşende uygulamalar yapılacaktır.

Projenin Yönetim Yapısı

Yürütücü Kuruluş : Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü

Uygulayıcı Kuruluş : Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (UNDP)

Proje Ortakları : Orman Mühendisleri Odası

Orman Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği

Doğa Koruma Merkezi

WWF Türkiye

GIZ

Gold Standard

Proje Bütçesi: 28.550.000 $ (7.120.000 $ Hibe)

Sorumlu Kurum Miktar (ABD Doları)

GEF 7.120.000 nakdi hibe

OGM 19.400.000 ayni katkı

UNDP 720.000 ayni katkı

100.000 nakdi katkı

GIZ 600.000 ayni katkı

WWF Türkiye 150.000 ayni katkı

Doğa Koruma Merkezi 150.000 ayni katkı

Orman Mühendisleri Odası 160.000 ayni katkı

Orman Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği 50.000 ayni katkı

Gold Standard 100.000 ayni katkı

Toplam 28.550.000 ABD Doları

Proje Bileşenleri ve Pilot AlanlarAkdeniz Bölgesi orman peyzajında yüksek koruma değerine sahip ve korunması gereken alanlar bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte orman alanlarında böcek zararlıları ve yangınlar gibi tehditlerin yanı sıra belirli orman alanlarında ise silvikültürel iyileştirmeler ile karbon stoklarını arttıracak fırsatlar bulunmaktadır. Tek bir bölgenin orman planları dahilinde, proje faaliyetleri entegre bir şekilde uygulandığı zaman, yukarıdaki ihtiyaçları karşılayacak önlemlerin alınması ormanların bütünlüğüne katkıda bulunacak, ormanların doğal ve insan kökenli tehditlere karşı uzun vadeli direncini arttıracak ve biyolojik çeşitlilik ve iklim bakımından faydalarını artıracaktır.

Proje toplam 450,000 hektarda karbon emisyonlarının azaltılmasına / karbon tutulmasına dair tedbirlerin alınması ve korunan alanların orman planları ve yönetimine entegrasyonu için bir model ortaya koyacaktır. Proje, pilot çabaların başarısını arttırmanın yanı sıra bu çalışmaların Türkiye’nin tüm Akdeniz ormanlarında daha geniş ölçekte uygulanabilmesi için mevzuat ve kurumsal değişimi teşvik edecek.

Genel anlamda proje, amacına ve uzun vadeli hedefine ulaşmak amacıyla mevcut durumdaki gerekli boşlukları doldururken bir yandan da mevcut durumu iyileştirmek için ele alınması gereken alanlara göre tasarlanmıştır. Proje, aşağıdaki üç bileşeni içermektedir:

Bileşen 1: Orman peyzajı içerisinde entegre orman yönetimi için mevzuat ve kurumsal çerçevenin geliştirilmesi,

Bileşen 2: Orman peyzajı içerisinde ormana-dayalı sera gazı emisyon azaltımı ve karbon tutma yöntemlerinin uygulanması,

Bileşen 3: Akdeniz ormanlarında yüksek koruma değerine sahip ormanların korunmasının güçlendirilmesi.

Projenin her bileşeni, ağırlık olarak Bileşen 2 ve Bileşen 3, Akdeniz Bölgesi’ndeki 5 Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü’nde uygulanacaktır. Proje hazırlık sürecinde belirlenen 5 Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü aşağıda sunulmaktadır:

1- Muğla Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü- Köyceğiz Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü2- Kahramanmaraş Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü- Andırın Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü3- Antalya Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü- Gazipaşa Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü4- Adana Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü- Pos Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü5- Mersin Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü- Gülnar Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü

Projenin Sağlayacağı FaydalarTürkiye; karbon havuzları ve biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunması için uygulanacak olan peyzaj yaklaşımı yoluyla yüksek değere sahip Akdeniz ormanlarının korunmasının güvence altına alınmasından faydalanacaktır. Temel faydalar aşağıdaki gibidir.

1- İklim değişikliği faydaları:Projenin iklim değişikliği faydaları; beş hedef Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü’nün bulunduğu alanda emisyonların azaltımı ve karbon tutunumu uygulamalarını içerecektir. Bu kapsamda yıllık 44,871.46 ton karbondioksite eşdeğer emisyon azaltımı ve yıllık 11,561.04 ton karbondioksite eşdeğer karbon tutumu gerçekleştirilmiş olacak. Ayrıca, yeni muhafaza ormanlarından yıllık 64,186 ton karbondioksite eşdeğer net karbon faydası elde edilecek. Projenin toplam yıllık karbon faydası 120,619.06 ton karbondioksit eşdeğeridir. Yaşam süresi boyunca (yenilenebilir enerji ekipmanı için 10 yıllık perspektif, diğer AKAKDO faaliyetleri için 20 yıllık perspektif) bu; 2,282,002.95 ton karbondioksite eşdeğer emisyon azaltımı/karbon tutumu payı anlamına gelmektedir. Proje tarafından pilot uygulaması yapılacak olan ekosistem tabanlı azaltım faaliyetlerinin yaygınlaştırılması için varolan potansiyel alan 1.6 milyon hektar orman alanını kapsamaktadır ve yaygınlaştırılması halinde yıllık bir milyon tondan fazla karbondioksit emisyon azaltımı sağlayacaktır.

Ormancılık sektörü için ulusal düzeyde karbon izleme, raporlama ve ölçümleme (MRV) sistemi oluşturulacaktır. Bu MRV sistemi; merkezileştirilmiş bir Arazi Kullanımı, Arazi Kullanım Değişikliği ve Ormancılık (AKAKDO) veri tabanı tarafından ve Orman İşletme Müdürlükleri seviyesinde Türkiye’nin Akdeniz ormanlarındaki karbon stokları ve stok değişiklik ölçümleri tarafından desteklenecektir. Söz konusu bu MRV sistemi, Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi’ne (BMİDÇS) yapılan raporlamanın yanı sıra içinde iklim değişikliği ile ilgili özel ölçüt ve göstergelerin olduğu orman amenajman planlarının peyzaj ölçeğinde hazırlanabilmesi için de Türkiye’nin mevcut kapasitesini güçlendirecektir. MRV sistemi Akdeniz ormanları için yeni standartlarla beraber Arazi Kullanımı, Arazi Kullanım Değişikliği ve Ormancılık (AKAKDO) İyi Uygulama Rehberi’ne uygun olarak hazırlanacaktır.

Proje kapsamında, ormancılık sektörü için Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Eylemi (NAMA) de hazırlanarak OGM’nin orman plan ve programlarında NAMA yapmak için mevcut bilgisi ve deneyimi arttırılmış olacak. NAMA’nın hazırlanması sırasında, emisyonlardan kaçınmak ve stokları güçlendirmek için pilot projeler gerçekleştirilecek ve karbon piyasasına kaydedilecektir.

2- Biyolojik çeşitlilik faydaları:Akdeniz ormanlarında endemik bitki ve hayvanların koruma statüsüne göre elde edilecek küresel biyolojik çeşitlilik faydaları orman yönetim sisteminin iyileştirilmesiyle sağlanacaktır. Bu sistem, tehditlerin azaltılmasını, Akdeniz’deki muhafaza ormanlarının 79,960 hektar büyüklüğünde genişlemesini, iyileştirilmiş yönetim etkinliğini ve mevcut korunan alan yönetiminin orman ve orman dışı alanlarda peyzaj bütünlüğünde değerlendirerek üretim faaliyetleriyle daha iyi entegre olmasını

sağlayacaktır. Amenajmandaki bu entegrasyon faaliyetleri, 6.36 milyon hektarda yaygınlaştırma potansiyeline sahiptir.

3- Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi Faydaları:Türkiye’nin ormanları ekosistem tabanlı çok-fonksiyonlu amenajman planlarına göre yönetilmektedir. Orman amenajman planlarındaki her orman biriminin fonksiyonu Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi (SOY) Kriter ve Göstergeleri ’ne göre belirlenmiştir. Proje, iklim değişikliği azaltımı ve biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunmasının çok-yönlü faydaları için belirlenen SOY Kriter ve Göstergeleri’ni iyileştirecektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde katılımcı büro çalışmaları ve toplantılar düzenlenirken yerel düzeyde ise uygulamalı eğitimler ve pilot uygulamalar gerçekleştirilecektir.

Proje Ortaklarının Ana Görevleri

Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (OGM)

Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (OGM), projenin yürütücü kurumudur. OGM’nin Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü, Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü ve Orman İşletme Şefliği projenin iklim değişikliği yönetimi, biyolojik çeşitlilik ve sürdürülebilir orman yönetimine dair faaliyetlerin uygulanmasından sorumlu olacaktır. OGM, 2014-sonrası Ormancılık Politika Belgesi’nin ve ormancılık sektörü için NAMA’nın geliştirilmesini koordine edecek ve sürdürülebilir orman yönetimini teşvik etmek amacıyla mevcut orman mevzuatında gereken düzenlemelerin onayını alacaktır. OGM’ye bağlı ORKÖY (Orman-Köy İlişkileri Dairesi Başkanlığı) güneş ısıtması çalışmalarını koordine edecek ve eş-finansman sağlayacaktır. OGM ayrıca, orman karbon izlemesi ve hesaplama sisteminin geliştirilmesinde de kilit aktördür. OGM, projenin kapasite geliştirme faaliyetleri için eğitim tesisleri sağlayacak ve OGM personeli projenin kapasite geliştirme çabalarının faydalanıcıları olacaktır. OGM, GEF desteğiyle gerçekleştirilecek olan silvikültür, orman ve böcek zararlıları yönetimi gibi ormancılık faaliyetlerine eş-finansman sağlayarak bu faaliyetleri iklim değişikliği azaltımına odaklanacak şekilde geliştirecektir. OGM, kurumdaki diğer ilgili dairelerle yakın işbirliği içerisinde BMİDÇS raporlaması için kullanılacak olan orman karbon izleme sisteminin tasarlanması ve uygulamasının yapılacağı yeni bir AKAKDO Birimi oluşturacaktır. OGM ayrıca iklim değişikliği ve biyolojik çeşitlilik göstergelerinin belirlenip iyileştirileceği beş pilot alanda yeni muhafaza ormanlarını belirleyecek ve açıklayacaktır. Tüm yapılacak bu çalışmalar orman idaresi ve planlama çalışmalarına entegre edilecek ve orman amenajman planlarına dahil edilecektir.

UNDP Türkiye Ülke Ofisi

Projenin uygulayıcı kurumudur. UNDP Türkiye, projenin GEF ve UNDP standartlarına göre uygulanması, proje kapsamındaki her türlü alım ve görevlendirilmenin Proje Yönetim Kurulu onayından sonra yapılması ve gerek idari gerekse mali raporlamalarının uluslararası standartlara uygun şekilde yapılmasından sorumludur.

Orman Mühendisleri Odası (OMO)

Orman Mühendisleri Odası 10,000’den fazla üyesiyle kapasite geliştirme faaliyetlerinde çok önemli bir rol oynayacaktır. Aynı zamanda OGM’nin

personeli olan OMO üyeleri, projenin kapasite geliştirme çabalarının doğrudan yararlanıcılarıdır. OMO’nun, Türk Mühendis ve Mimar Odaları Birliği’nin de bir üyesi olmasından ötürü ilgili mevzuatı, normları, bilimsel şartnameleri, standart kontratları ve ormancılıkla ilgili benzer bilimsel belgeleri inceler ve düzeltilmeleri, iyileştirilmeleri ve yeniden uygulanmaları yönünde önerilerde bulunur. OMO, OGM ile işbirliği içerisinde MRV ve NAMA standartları hazırlamada rol alacaktır.

Orman Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği (ORKOOP)

Orman Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği, orman köylülerine ilişkin faaliyetlerin uygulanmasında etkin olacaktır. Birliğin yerel şubeleri; muhafaza ormanlarının belirlenmesi ve biyolojik çeşitliliğin orman amenajman planlarına entegrasyonu gibi alınacak kararlara ve gerçekleştirilecek uygulamalara orman köylülerinin dahil edilmesi gereken uygulamalara yerel toplumun ve kadınların katılımını teşvik etmede kilit rol oynayacaktır. ORKOOP ayrıca güneş ısıtıcıları, ekoturizm ve odun-dışı orman ürünleri girişimlerine aracılık edecektir.

Doğa Koruma Merkezi (DKM)

Doğa Koruma Merkezi; biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunması ve muhafaza ormanı yönetimi, iklim değişikliği senaryolarının orman amenajman planlarına entegrasyonu ve muhafaza ormanlarının belirlenmesi konularındaki deneyimiyle projenin kilit ortaklarındandır. Orman biyolojik çeşitliliği ile ilgili olan Bileşen 3, DKM tarafından çalışılacaktır. DKM’nin on yılı aşkın bir süredir OGM ile orman biyolojik çeşitliliği konularında işbirliği içinde çalışmasından ötürü uygulama kapasiteleri ve mevcut deneyimleri; mevcut orman biyolojik çeşitliliğinin peyzaj düzeyde korunması için kullanılacaktır.

WWF Türkiye WWF Türkiye, küresel ağı yoluyla sürdürülebilir orman yönetimine ve orman ve iklim değişikliğine ilişkin konulara bilgi, teknik deneyim ve yenilikçi yaklaşımlar getirecektir. WWF Türkiye; iklim değişikliği azaltım faydalarına odaklanan silvikültür, yangın ve böcek zararlıları yönetimi faaliyetlerinin uygulanmasında kilit rol oynayacaktır.

GIZ “Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika Bölgesi’ndeki Orman Politikalarının İklim Değişikliğine Uyum Sağlaması” Bölgesel Projesiyle GIZ; Türkiye de dahil olmak üzere Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika Bölgesi’nden seçilen ülkelerde iklim değişikliği bağlamında ormana dayalı çevresel hizmetleri korumak amacıyla orman ekosistemlerinin sürdürülebilir yönetimi için siyasi çerçeveyi iyileştirecek faaliyetlerde bulunmaktadır. GIZ bu projede, orman ve iklim değişikliğine odaklı mevcut bölgesel işbirliğini güçlendirmek ve ulusal ve bölgesel düzeyde kapasite güçlendirme faaliyetlerini desteklemekte çok önemli bir görev üstlenecektir.

Gold Standard MRV ve NAMA konularındaki uluslararası deneyim ve bilgisiyle Gold Standard; beş pilot alanda gerçekleştirilecek faaliyetler kapsamında hazırlanacak olan MRV’nin detaylandırılmasında, gelir paylaşımı mekanizmasında, NAMA ve karbon projelerinde önemli bir rol oynayacaktır.

Program Akışı

1.Gün: 16 Aralık 2013 Pazartesi

Açılış konuşmaları UNDP Program Yönetici Dr. Katalin Zaim, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü Dış İlişkiler,

Eğitim ve Araştırma Dairesi Başkanı Dr. Ahmet İpek tarafından yapılmıştır. Dr. Katalin Zaim’in Proje

ve Başlangıç Çalıştayı hakkında bilgilendirme sunumundan sonra Dış Kaynaklı Projeler Şube Müdür

Vekili Ümit Turhan tarafından projenin yönetim yapısı ile ilgili sunum yapılmıştır. Bu sunumun

ardından UNDP Proje Uzmanı Nuri Özbağdatlı projenin mevcut durumunu özetleyerek proje

faaliyetleri ile ilgili bilgi vermiş ve öğleden sonra yapılacak proje alt faaliyetlerine ilişkin çalışma için

proje bileşenlerine göre çalışma gruplarını yönlendirmiştir.

Proje bileşenleri baz alınarak oluşturulan çalışma grupları alt faaliyetleri belirlemek üzere birinci gün

sonuna kadar çalışmalarını sürdürmüşlerdir. Bu çalışmaların ardından ilgili bileşenlere ait belirlenen

alt faaliyetleri içeren sunumlar hazırlanmıştır.

2.Gün: 17 Aralık 2013 Salı

Çalışma gruplarının sunumları grup sözcüleri tarafından sunulmuş ve ilgili konularda katılımcıların

önerileri sunum esnasında dile getirilmiştir.

Görüş ve Öneriler:

Genel olarak beş ana konuda tartışmalar yapılmıştır. Bu konular ve genel değerlendirme aşağıda sunulmuştur.

1- AKAKDO Birimi: Mevcut durumda Dış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve Araştırma Daire Başkanlığı altında faaliyet gösteren bir AKAKDO Birimi bulunmaktadır. Bu birimin güçlendirilmesine yönelik bir plan hazırlanıp, proje kapsamında yapılacak faaliyetleri bu plan doğrultusunda ele almanın faydalı olacağı belirtilmiştir. AKAKDO Biriminin sadece teknik olarak değil aynı zamanda yönetsel olarak da güçlendirilmesinin önem arz ettiği belirtilmiştir.

2- Projenin Genel Yönetim Yapısı: Gerek taşra gerekse merkez teşkilattan katılan katılımcılar, projenin özellikle ikinci bileşeni olan iklim değişikliği azaltım faaliyetleri ile üçüncü bileşeni olan biyolojik çeşitlilik ve odun dışı ürünler konularından dolayı, yönetim yapısı içerisinde Odun Dışı Ürün ve Hizmetler Daire Başkanlığı ile Orman İdaresi ve Planlama Daire Başkanlığı’nın yetkilendirilmesinin önemini belirtmişlerdir. Yapılacak her faaliyetin amenajman planlarına entegre edilmesi gereğinin altı çizilmiştir. Mevcut yönetim yapısı içerisinde genel koordinasyonun Dış İlişkiler Eğitim ve Araştırma Daire Başkanlığı tarafından yapılırken pilot bölgelerdeki teknik uygulamaların ilgili tüm Daire Başkanlıklarını, özellikle bahsi geçen iki Daire Başkanlığını, içerecek şekilde ele alınacağı katılımcılar ile tekrar paylaşılmıştır. Ayrıca Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı’nın AB ve Dış İlişkiler Daire Başkanlığı tarafından belirtilen bir husus olan, GEF projesinin yönetim yapısında GEF İdari Odak Noktası olarak kendilerinin de yer almasının önemli olduğu belirtilmiştir. Proje Yönetim Kurulu

Başkanı Dr. Mahir Küçük’ün Bakanlık Müsteşar Yardımcılığı gereği GEF İdari Odak Noktasını da temsil edebileceği durumu belirtilmiştir.

3- Pilot Alanlardaki Amenajman Planlarının Mevcut Durumu: Projenin beklenenden geç başlaması sonucunda, önceden belirlenen alanlardan üçünde amenajman planlama çalışmaları bitirilmiştir. Bu durumda revizyon yapılabilmesi fakat aynı zamanda yapılan emek ve harcamaların göz önünde bulundurulmasının önemi belirtilmiştir. Teknik olarak en uygun çözümün belirlenmesi için projenin ilk aylarında teknik çalışmaların merkez ve taşra teşkilatlarında yapılması gündeme gelmiştir.

4- Muhafaza Ormanı Tanımı ve Olası Etkileri: Proje kapsamında muhafaza ormanı tanımının “iklim değişikliği ve biyolojik çeşitlilik” ifadeleri ile güncellenmesi ve sonucunda da pilot alan olarak seçilen 5 Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü’nde toplam 80,000 hektara yakın bir alanda yeni muhafaza ormanı oluşturulması hedeflenmektedir. Böyle bir durumda ormancılık faaliyetlerinin ve üretiminin kısıtlanıp kısıtlanmayacağı gündeme getirilmiştir. Proje kapsamında oluşturulacak yeni muhafaza ormanları çekirdek alan, koridorlar ve tampon bölgeler olarak toplam 80,000 hektarlık bir alanı kapsayacaktır. Öte yandan bu alanlar içerisinde biyolojik çeşitlilik açısından önemli olan bazı tür ve habitatların orman dışı alanlar içinde olacağı ön görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak mevcut durumda bir muhafaza ormanı içerisinde yapılmakta olan ormancılık faaliyetleri, bu yeni alanlar içerisinde de yapılacaktır. Bununla birlikte, IUCN (Uluslararası Doğa Koruma Birliği) korunan alanlar kriterlerini sağlayabilecek olan muhafaza ormanlarının belirlenmesi ve listelenmesinin, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü’nün yapagelmekte olduğu faydalı çalışmaların bir göstergesi olarak nitelendirileceği de belirtilmiştir.

5- AKAKDO ve Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Veritabanı ve ORBİS: Proje kapsamında yapılması planlanan iki veritabanının da mevcut ORBİS çalışması ile ilişkilendirilmesi ve yapılmış olan çalışmaları destekleyecek bir şekilde revize edilmesi önerilmiştir. Her iki veritabanı da ORBİS ile ilişkilendirilecek bir şekilde, mevcutta yapılmış olan faaliyetlere ek olarak yapılacağı belirtilmiştir.

Yukarıda özetlenen konulardaki görüş ve önerilere yönelik konuşma metinleri aşağıda ayrıca sunulmuştur.

Galip Çağatay Tufanoğlu: Biyolojik Çeşitlilik, Odun Dışı Ürün Değer Zinciri ve Eko Turizm

konulu Grup 3’ün sözcüsü olarak sunumu sırasında şu önerileri paylaşmıştır;

Muhafaza ormanı teriminin değiştirilmesi önerilmiştir. Biyoçeşitlilik teriminin çok iddialı bir şekilde

kullanılmış olduğu ve terminolojik olarak değerlendirilmesinin daha uygun olacağı dile getirilmiştir.

Mevcut biyoçeşitlilik veri tabanının yenilenmesinin faydalı olacağı ifade edilmiştir. Sistemin

geliştirilmesi ve yenilenmesi gerektiği vurgulanmıştır. Eylem planı yerine başka bir isim

kullanılmasının daha etkileyici olacağı ifade edilmiştir. Proje yönetiminde Orman İdaresi ve Planlama

Dairesi Başkanlığı (OİPD) ve Odun Dışı Ürünler ve Hizmetler Dairesi Başkanlığının (ODÜH) yer

almasının gerekli olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Parçalanmış ekosistemlerin (HES’ler, Otoyollar vb. ile ) nasıl

değerlendirilmesi gerektiği sorunu gündeme getirilmiştir.

Grubun, Pos ve Köyceğiz işletmelerinde ekoturizm çalışmaları yapılmasını doğru bulduğu görüşü

ifade edilmiştir. Bu işletmelerde yapılacak çalışmalarda konuyla ilgili daha önce yapılmış (Küre

Dağları Projesi gibi) projelerden faydalanılmasının gerekliliği vurgulanmıştır.

Odun dışı ürünlerin ekonomik değerleri göz önünde bulundurularak, öncelik verilecek ürünlerin

belirlenmesi ve piyasa araştırması faaliyetlerinin projede öncelik teşkil etmesi istenmiştir.

Ahmet Yaman: Projede kullanılan muhafaza ormanı ifadesi işletmelerde biyoçeşitliliğin korunması

amacıyla yapılacak çalışmalarla, 5 tane işletmenin dolayısıyla 5 şefliğin kapatılması, üretim

yapılmaması anlamına gelir şeklinde yorumda bulunmuştur.

Berkay Özdemir: Muhafaza ormanı tanımının projede yeterli olmadığını vurgulamıştır. Normalde

kanuni olarak üretimi kısıtlayan bir durum yoktur. Ancak kadastro izni ile ilgili sorun olabilir şeklinde

yorum getirmiştir.

Nuri Özbağdatlı: Yönetmelikteki muhafaza ormanı tanımı ile projedeki muhafaza ormanı ifadesinin

aynı terimi karşıladığını ifade etmiştir. OGM’nin muhafaza ormanı yönetmeliği ile korunan alanların,

uluslararası korunan alanlar tanımı ile örtüşmesi için muhafaza tanımı içerisine biyolojik çeşitlilik ve

iklim değişikliği terimlerinin ilave edilmesi gerektiğini söylemiştir. Ormancılık faaliyetleri

yönetmelikte yer aldığı şekilde yapılacağını, ormancılık faaliyetleri yapılmayacak diye bir durumun

söz konu olamayacağını belirtmiştir.

Galip Çağatay Tufanoğlu: “OGM çok büyük bir alan yönetmesine ve geniş bir alanda koruma

yapmasına rağmen korunan alanlar net olarak korunan kısım olarak gösterilmemiştir. Web üzerinde

CBS tabanlı bir biyoçeşitlilik envanterimiz mevcuttur. Ancak yetersiz, bu proje ile biyoçeşitlilik ve

odun dışı ürünlerle ilgili bilgi sistemi izleme modeli oluşturmak istiyoruz. Mevcut veri tabanı izleme

ve raporlamada yetersizdir. “Nuh’un Gemisi” gibi veri tabanı sistemlerinden yararlanılabilir.

Raporlama konusunda eksiklerimizin giderilmesi ve diğer veri tabanları model alınarak mevcut veri

tabanlarının geliştirmek için faydalı çalışmalar yapılabileceği umudunu taşımaktayız. Bitki, hayvan

türleri belirlenerek ilgili akademisyenlerin görüşleri alınarak veri tabanına eklenmeye devam

edilmektedir. Şu ana kadar 1600 civarında veri depolanmıştır. Veri tabanları arasında bilgi alış verişleri

gerekmektedir. Eylem planlarının ve stratejilerin yeniden belirlenmesi ve güncellenmesi

gerekmektedir.” şeklinde görüş bildirmiştir.

Nilgün Temerit: “Eko-turizmde orman köylerine mikro kredi verilmesinde izleme, değerlendirme

konuları göz önünde bulundurulmuş mu?” şeklinde bir soru yöneltmiştir.

Galip Çağatay Tufanoğlu: Orköy’de bu şekilde izleme değerlendirme sisteminin mevcut olduğunu

belirtmiştir.

Seyfettin Ulusoy: “Uluslararası uzmanlardan destek alınmasından önce ulusal uzmanlara öncelik

tanınmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Ayrıca toplanan odun dışı ürünlerin satışı konusunda neler yapılacak?

Odun dışı orman ürünleri hasat işleri, sonraki aşamada satışla ilgili bilgi nasıl toplanıyor?” şeklinde

konuşmuştur.

Galip Çağatay Tufanoğlu: Bu soruya alıcı ve satıcının buluşturulacağı, OGM olarak alım-satıma

karışılmayacağı, pazar araştırmasının iç ve dış piyasa araştırması olarak yapılacağı şeklinde cevap

vermiştir.

Nuri Özbağdatlı: “Öncelik ulusal uzmanlara verilecek, daha sonra yabancı uzmanlardan yardım

alınacaktır. Proje 3. bileşeninde değer zinciri ifadesi pazar araştırmalarını ve verilecek destekleri

içermektedir” şeklinde konuşmuştur.

Şenay Çelik : (Kurumsal ve Mevzuat Yapı, Kapasite Geliştirme ve Dış İlişkiler, AKAKDO ve NAMA) konulu Grup1’in sunumu sırasında grup önerisi olarak şu önerileri sunmuştur;

-OGM’de bir AKAKDO birimi mevcuttur ancak güncellenmesi ve faaliyetlerinin irdelenmesi

gerekmektedir.

-OIPD’nin bu bileşen faaliyetlerinde etkili rol oynaması ve bunun için de yönetim yapısında yer alması

gerekmektedir.

Bahar Ubay Güçlüsoy: Gold Standard ile yapılacak işbirliği ile yeni bir iyileştirilmiş orman yönetimi

modeli bile geliştirilebileceğini söylemiştir. FSC ile Gold Standard’ın, IFM konusunda işbirliğinin

mevcut olduğunu vurgulamıştır.

Çağlar Başsüllü:“Türkiye 2020 yılı sonuna kadar her hangi bir sayısallaştırılmış emisyon sınırlandırması ve azaltım hedefi belirlemediği için yani hukuki olarak bir yükümlülüğü olmadığı için Kyoto Protokolü esneklik mekanizmalarından yararlanamamaktadır. Ancak, 2020 yılı sonrasında bütün ülkeleri kapsayacak yasal bağlayıcılığı olan bir anlaşma üzerinde müzakereler devam etmektedir. 2020 yılı sonrasında Türkiye sayısallaştırılmış emisyon sınırlandırması ve azaltım hedefi belirlediği takdirde emisyon ticaretine katılabilecektir. İklim Değişikliği Ulusal Eylem Planında, ulusal emisyon ticaret sistemi kurulması planlanmaktadır. Ancak çalışmalar yavaş ilerlemektedir. Emisyon

ticaret sistemi kurulduğu takdirde özellikle enerji ve ulaştırma sektörleri büyük emisyon azaltımı yapmaları gerekecektir. Ormancılık sektörü ise yutak alanları oluşturduğu için idari ve mevzuat değişiklikleri yaptığı takdirde emisyon ticaret sisteminden faydalanabilecektir " şeklinde görüş bildirmiştir.

Emine Ataş: “İçerisinde yer aldığım çalışma grubunun (Grup1) toplantısı sırasında farklı kişiler

tarafından mevcut AKAKDO biriminde karar vericiler arasında OİPD’nin de yer alması gerektiği gibi

ifadeler yer aldı. AKAKDO biriminde tüm dairelerden isimlerin yer aldığı söylendi ancak bunlar karar

verici konumda değiller anladığım kadarıyla sadece ara sıra fikir alınmak üzere belirlenen isimler. Bu

konuya açıklık getirilmeli En uygun revizyon yapılarak AKAKDO biriminin bir çalıştay ile

belirlenmesi daha uygun olur diye düşünüyorum. OGM’nin tüm çalışmalarında yer alacak

sürdürülebilir bir birim olmalı. Projenin genelinde tüm faaliyetlerde OİPD görev almakta ancak üst

yönetimde yer almamaktadır. Bu durumun da değerlendirilmesi gerekiyor.” şeklinde görüş bildirmiştir.

Fatih Aytar : (Orman Planlama, Yangın, Zararlılarla Mücadele, Silvikültür, Bilgi Sistemleri ve Orman Köylüleri ile İlişkiler) konulu Grup 3’ün sunumu sırasında grup adına şu önerileri sunmuştur;

“OİPD’nin alt faaliyetlerde yer aldığı gibi üst yönetimde de yer alması ve organizasyonu sağlaması

gerekmektedir.”

Ali Temerit: “Orman yangın yönetimi kapsamında; orman yangınlarının biyolojik çeşitliliğe etkisi

irdelenmeli ve ayrıca insan sağlığına olumsuz etkisinin derecesi belirlenmeye çalışılmalı,

Orman yangınına hassas bölgelerde, yanıcı madde miktarını azaltmak amacıyla yoğun silvikültürel

müdahaleler yapılmalı ve müdahaleler sonrası çıkarılan materyalin biyokütleden enerji üretimi için

kullanılabilme imkanları araştırılmalı, ayrıca bazı yörelerde ormandan çıkarılacak materyalin miktarı

biyokütleden enerji üretimi için yeterli miktarda değilse, bu yörelerde kontrollü yakma gibi yöntemler

uygulanarak yanıcı madde miktarı azaltılmalı,

Orman yangın emniyet yol ve şeritlerinde silva pastoral ve agro silva pastoral sistemler uygulanarak

gıda güvenliği ve beslenmeye katkı sağlanmalı,

Orman ekosistemlerinde, entegre zararlı mücadele kapsamında; zararlı böceklerden gıda güvenliği ve

beslenmede yararlanma imkanları değerlendirilmeli,

GEF 5 proje uygulama alanlarında, mevcut orman amenajman planlarının, ekosistem tabanlı çok

amaçlı orman amenajman plan standartlarına uygunluğu irdelenmeli, uygun olmayanlar ıslah edilmeli

ve yeni planlama süreçlerinde ise ekosistem tabanlı ve peyzaj yaklaşımlı planlama esas alınmalı,

Orman sektörünün diğer ilgili sektörlerle entegre yönetilmesi sağlanarak ve orman ürün ve

hizmetlerinde ürün çeşitliliği artırılarak; orman sektörünün gayri safi milli hasılaya ve istihdama

katkısı yükseltilmeli,

Karar mekanizmalarının sağlıklı strateji ve politikalar oluşturabilmesi için stratejik veri ve bilgiyi

Ulusal Orman Envanteri üzerinden sağlayan ve Ulusal Orman Envanteri ile entegre Ormancılık Bilgi

Sistemi kurulmalı,” şeklinde görüş bildirmiştir.

Nilgün Temerit: “Karbon protokolleri terimi bileşen içinde yer almaktadır. Bu terim neyi ifade

etmektedir?” şeklinde bir soru yöneltmiştir.

Nuri Özbağdatlı: Protokol kelimesi ile bir süreç ifade edilmek istenmiştir. Karbon protokolleri yerine

karbon süreçleri ifadesi kullanılması daha uygun olabilir.

Galip Çağatay Tufanoğlu:“ Bileşen 2.4.5. Haşere zararına karşı doğal kontrolü iyileştirmeye yönelik

silvikültürel faaliyetlerin uygulanması” için önerilen “Üretim artıklarının saha dışına çıkartılması ve

imha edilmesi” alt faaliyeti sırasında karbon salınımına neden olacak işlem yapılmasının projenin

amacı ile ters düşeceği gerekçesi ile başka alt faaliyetler konulmasını önermiştir.

Nuri Özbağdatlı: “Projenin ana çerçevesinde biyokütle ile ilgili faaliyetler yer almıyor ancak bu

konuda çıktılarımız olursa FFEM projesine girdi oluşturabilir, FFEM projesi ile bilgi paylaşımı

yapılabilir. Mevcut AKAKDO biriminin genişletilmesi için bir çalıştay yapılması ve katılımcılar

tarafından dile getirilen OIPD ve ODÜH başkanlıklarının yönetim yapısında yer alması talebi

değerlendirilecektir. Üç pilot bölgenin amenajman planlarının tamamlanması gerekmektedir. OGM

2013-2017 Stratejik planında yer alan hedeflerin gerçekleştirilmesinin sağlanarak iş yükü ve

finansman açısından ek yük getirmeden faaliyetlerin proje kapsamında tamamlanması

öngörülmektedir. Çalışmalar sonunda muhafaza ormanı teriminin ve içeriğinin netleşmesi gereği

ortaya çıkmıştır.

Bileşen (1) içinde yer alan iklim değişikliği ve biyoçeşitlilik tanımlarının muhafaza ormanı içinde yer

alması için düzenlemeler yapılmalıdır.

Veri tabanı çalışmalarının Daire Başkanlıklarının da ihtiyaçlarını giderecek şekilde ORBİS için veri

tabanı oluşturması sağlanacaktır. Proje kapsamında yapılanlarla ve benzeri faaliyetlerle ORBİS veri

tabanı oluşturulacaktır.

Bu projenin başarısı OGM ‘nin başarısı ve aynı zamanda Türkiye’nin başarısı olacaktır” şeklinde

görüş bildirmiştir.

Enis Berkay Özdemir: “Mevcut amenajman planlarının yenilenmesi yeterli olacaktır” şeklinde

yorumda bulunmuştur.

Salih Ayaz: “Proje OGM ihtiyaçlarına göre düzenlenmelidir. Projenin uygulaması sırasında

sıkıntılarla karşılaşılabilir. Bunlara hazırlıklı olunması gerekmektedir. Pilot bölgelerde istek ve

kriterler nasıl ortaya konacaktır? Daire Başkanlıkları, Bölge Müdürlükleri ve İşletme müdürlükleri

arasında koordinasyon nasıl sağlanacaktır? Bu soruların yanıtlanması projenin akıbeti açısından

önemlidir” şeklinde yorum yapmıştır.

Nuri Özbağdatlı: “Yönetim kurulu yapısında GEF İdari Odak Noktası adına Müsteşar Yardımcısı

Mahir Küçük’ün ismi kaydedilecektir” şeklinde ek bilgi sunmuştur.

Ümit Turhan:

“Tüm katılımcıların önerilerini ve 2014 yılı detaylı iş planını içeren raporu proje yönetim kuruluna sunacağız. Projenin uygulama safhasına geçilmeden düzenlenen bu teknik toplantının ilk yıl uygulama

faaliyetlerinin netleşmesi açısından faydalı olduğunu söylemek istiyorum. Tüm katılımcılara katkılarından dolayı teşekkür ediyorum” diyerek toplantıyı sonlandırmıştır.

Proje yöneticileri tarafından taslak iş planının Dış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve Araştırma Dairesi Başkanlığı tarafından değerlendirilip son hali verildikten sonra katılımcılar ile paylaşılacağı belirtilmiştir. Toplantı sonunda grupların hazırladığı ilk yıl uygulama faaliyetlerini içeren 2014 yılı iş planı taslak olarak aşağıda sunulmuştur.

2014 TASLAK İŞ PLANI (Nihai hali güncellenmektedir)

ÇIKTILAR FAALİYETLER İLGİLİ DAİREUygulama Yıl 1

1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

1.1 Türkiye'nin orman karbon stoğunu koruma ve zenginleştirme amaçlı çalışmaların tasarlanması, uygulanması ve izlenmesine yönelik özellikli kapasite ve araçlarıyla Orman Genel Müdürlüğü bünyesinde bulunan bir AKAKDO birimi.(AKAKDO Çalışma Grubu ve İklim İhtisas Grubu 2008’den beri var.) (mevcut halinin geliştirilmesi amaçlanıyorsa yeniden formüle edilmeli)

1.1.1. AKAKDO biriminin Orman Genel Müdürlüğü'ndeki teknik gereksinim ve detaylı sorumluluklarla birlikte yeniden organize edilmesi ve yürütülmesi.

a- Mevcut AKAKDO biriminin uluslararası standartlarda yetkin bir birim olması için neler gerektiğinin irdelenmesi, belirlenecek başka uluslararası birimlerle kapasitesinin karşılaştırmalı olarak gözden geçirilmesi, eksikliklerinin tamamlanması için bir çalıştay yapılması

b- Mevcut AKAKDO biriminin proje sonrası sürdürülebilirliğinin sağlanmasının hedeflendiği iş tanımının ulusal ve uluslararası öncelikler doğrultusunda yapılması

Bilgi SistemleriStrateji GeliştirmeOrman İdaresi ve PlanlamaDış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve AraştırmaYangın Dairesiİşletme Pazarlama DairesiPaydaş olarak daBakanlık Avrupa Birliği Dış İlişkiler Dairesi Başkanlığının eklenmesi önerilmiştir.

x x x x

1.1.2. AKAKDO biriminin kapasitesinin arttırımına yönelik teknik destek (ulusal ve uluslararası)

a- AKAKDO birimi için yeni değişkenlerin, teknik eksikliklerin (toprak ve ölü örtü) tanımlanması ve envanter kılavuzunun hazırlanması

b- AKAKDO biriminin teknik ve idari ihtiyaçlarına yönelik eğitim içeriği hazırlanması

x x x

1.1.3. Ulusal düzeyde AKAKDO konularına ilişkin işbirliği amacıyla ilgili devlet kurumlarıyla görüşmeler ve atölye çalışmaları

a- İlgili diğer kurumlarla ortak çalışma grubu oluşturulması, işbirliği yapılması ve veri akışının sağlanması

b- İdari ve teknik yapının oluşturulması için uluslararası bir çalıştay düzenlenmesi

x x x

1.2 Türkiye ormanlarından elde edilen çoklu faydaların hesaplanmasına olanak sağlayacak idari ve teknik düzenlemeler

1.2.1. İklim değişikliği ve biyoçeşitlilikle ilgili ihtiyaçları da kapsayan yüksek koruma değerine sahip ormanlarda muhafaza ormanı statüsünün oluşturulmasına imkan sağlacayak mevzuat revizyonların geliştirilmesi ve onaylanması

a-Muhafaza Ormanı yönetmeliği revizyonu için ilgili dairelerin görüşlerinin alınacağı bir çalıştay düzenlenmesi (Mevcut yönetmeliğe iklim değişikliği ve biyoçeşitlilik kavramlarının eklenmesi)b-Çalıştay sonuçlarına göre onay sürecinin başlatılmasıc-Orman Muhafaza alanlarına uluslararası (IUCN gibi kabul görmüş) statü kazandırılmaya çalışılması ve bunun için gerekli mevzuat değişiklikleri çalışmasının yapılması (bu alanların yönetiminin OGM de kalması kaydıyla)

Orman Zararlıları ile MücadeleOrman İdaresi ve PlanlamaStrateji GeliştirmeHukuk MüşavirliğiOdun Dışı Ürünler DairesiKadastro Dairesi (uygulamada)Paydaş olarak daDKMP’nin eklenmesi önerilmiştir.

x x

1.2.2.Türkiye ormanlarından elde edilen çoklu faydaların (iklim değişikliği ve biyolojik çeşitlilik) hesaplanmasına (belirlenmesi) ilişkin yöntemlerin geliştirilmesi ( SOY KG kapsamında ele alınıp detaylı çalışmalar 5 pilot alanda uygulanacaktır)

a- Çoklu faydaların (ekosistem hizmetleri kapsamında) listelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesib-Farklı pilot alanlar özelinde yöntemlerin mevcut veriler uyarınca geliştirilmesic- En yüksek fayda sağlayacak hizmetlerin tanımlanması ve yalnızca bunların mevcut verilere göre hesaplanmasıd-Üretilmesi gereken verilerin tespiti ve gerekli olduğunda proje kapsamında yeni veri üretilmesinin desteklenmesie-İstihdam ve GDP açısından 5 pilot alanda

x x x

verilen katkının irdelenmesi doğrultusunda çalışılmasıf-FFEM projesinin değerlendirilmesinden (düzlerçamı) yararlanılmasıg-Soy Kriter göstergelerinde karbona yönelik kriterlerin iyileştirilmesi, karbon stoğuna ilişkin bir gösterge tanımlanmasıi-Kriter ve göstergelerle ilgili diğer kurumlardan veri teminin sağlanmasıj-OGM’nin soy kriter ve göstergelerine ulusal düzeyde ilgili kurumlar dahil edilerek geliştirilmesi

1.3 Türkiye’nin Akdeniz ormanlarına yönelik olarak Ölçülebilir-Raporlanabilir-Doğrulanabilir (ÖRD) sisteminin geliştirilmesi ve orman yönetim süreçlerine yerleştirilmesi

1.3.2. Türkiye için IFM/AR (Entegre Orman Yönetimi/Ormanlaştırma ve Yeniden Ormanlaştırma) durumuna yönelik Ölçülebilir-Raporlanabilir-Doğrulanabilir bir çerçeve oluşturulması

a-IFM ile iklim değişikliği ve biyolojik çeşitlilik ile ilgili eksik metodolojinin geliştirilmesib- Silva mediterranea ulusal soy kriter göstergelerinin iklim ve biyolojik çeşitlilik kavramları uyarınca geliştirilmesic- Mevcut gold standart MRV çerçevesinin ortaya konulmasıd-Mevcut MRV uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesie-Boşluk analizinin yapılması ve Türkiye’nin ihtiyacının belirlenmesif-İlgili paydaşlarla görüşmelerin başlatılması ve zararsızlık analizinin yapılmasıg-Sürdürülebilirlik matrisinin geliştirilmesih-MRV çerçevesinin uygulanması

Dış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve AraştırmaBilgi SistemleriStrateji GeliştirmeOrman İdaresi ve Planlama (Bu daire başkanlığının çıkarılması önerilmiştir.)Ağaçlandırma DairesiFidanlık ve Tohum DairesiPaydaş olarakDKMP birimlerinin eklenmesi önerilmiştir.

x x x

1.3.3. Karbon hesaplama yönteminin seçilmesi ve modellenmesi

a-Yeni bir IFM metodolojisi geliştirildikten sonra IPCC’ye sunulmasıb- Türkiye için uygun AFOLU yönteminin belirlenmesi

x x x

c-Rehabilitasyon uygulaması sonrası gerekliliklere göre yeni bir yöntem geliştirilmesi

1.3.4. Karbon projeleri için Proje Tasarım Belgesi'nin geliştirilmesi

1.3.5.Kayıt

1.4 Orman biyoçeşitliliğinin korunması ile izlenmesinde ve AKAKDO-orman karbon izlenmesi ve hesaplanmasında, merkezi ve yerel teşkilat düzeyinde kapasitenin geliştirilmesi

1.4.1. İklim değişikliği azaltım ve biyoçeşitliliğin korunması konularını kapsayan entegre orman yönetimi için eğitim setinin geliştirilmesi, basılması ve dağıtılması

a-Kapasite geliştirme ihtiyacının tanımlanması için çalıştay yapılmasıb-İklim değişikliği ve Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ile ilgili Türkiye senaryolarının yorumlanıp, buna göre eğitim setinin hazırlanmasıc-Türkiye’nin iklim modellerinin biyolojik çeşitliliğe etkilerinin ilgili uzmanlarca yapılacak araştırmaların yorumlanması (proje uygulamaları için bu madde özelinde değil genel bir risk olarak tanımlandı

Dış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve AraştırmaBilgi Sistemleri Orman İdaresi ve PlanlamaStrateji GeliştirmeOdun Dışı Orman Ürünleri Dairesinin eklenmesi önerilmiştir.

x x x x

1.4.2. Eğitim modüllerinin 5 pilot alanda uygulanıp diğer işletmelerle paylaşılması, işletme müdürlüğü düzeyinde edinilen tecrübelerle ilgili kısa videoların çekilmesi.

1.4.3. İklim değişikliğinin azaltılması ve biyoçeşitliliğin korunmasını da kapsayan entegre orman yönetimine yönelik olarak Akdeniz iklim sahasında teknik bilgi ve tecrübe paylaşımı - Bölgesel ve uluslararası düzeyde tecrübelerin paylaşılmasına yönelik olarak uluslararası görüşmelere katılmak suretiyle Orman Genel Müdürlüğü görevlilerinin kapasitelerinin geliştirilmesi

x x x x

1.5 Ormancılık sektörü için Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Faaliyet(ler)inin (NAMA) hazırlanması

1.5.1. Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Faaliyeti'nin hazırlanması için mevcut durumun belirlenmesi

Dış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve AraştırmaBilgi Sistemleri Orman İdaresi ve Planlama

x x x

a-Mevcut ve ileriye dönük ulusal politika, stratejilerin ve mevcut ormanlaştırma uygulamalarında öncelikli seçeneklerin değerlendirilmesib- Sera Gazı envanter, eylem içermeyen ve Türkiye’nin azaltım profilinin BAU(referans) senaryoya göre değerlendirilmesic-Türkiye’deki kurumsal yapı ve süreçlerin değerlendirilmesi

d-Çoklu paydaş analizi

e- Orman Genel Müdürlüğü ile istişare içerisinde hedeflerin belirlenmesi (yuvarlak masa toplantısı-gelecekteki ulusal azaltım taahhütleri dikkate alınarak)

Strateji GeliştirmeOrman ZararlılarıYangınla MücadelePaydaş olarak daÇevre ve Şehircilik BakanlığıÖzel Sektör’ün eklenmesi önerilmiştir.

1.5.2. Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Faaliyeti için ölçeğin ve yöntem belirlenmesia- Birincil ve ikincil öncelikli faaliyet serilerinin tespiti ve skorlanması; Türkiye’de belirlenen yüksek koruma öncelikli ormanlarda yürütülecek pilot ölçekli uygulamaları da dikkate alan azaltım seçeneklerine dayalı önerilerin geliştirilmesi

b-Elde edilebilir bilgiye dayalı maliyet analizlerinin ve bu maliyetlere karşın önerilen eylemlerin değerlendirilmesi ve 2015 sonrası(Post-2015) müzakereleri kapsamında NAMA seçeneklerinin analizic- NAMA geliştirilmesi için adım adım kapsam ve yöntemin belirlenmesi

d- Önerilen kapsam, eylemler seti ve yöntem üzerine paydaşlardan ulusal bir çalıştay aracılığıyla görüş alınması

e- İlk taslağın hazırlanması

x x x

1.5.3. Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Faaliyet hazırlığına yönelik olarak kısa ve orta vadeli bir yol haritasının belirlenmesia- Yol haritasının taslağının oluşturulmasıb- OGM ve başlıca paydaşlarla istişare yürütülmesi

x x

1.5.4.Ulusal Programlara Uygun Azaltım Faaliyeti'nin uygulanmasına ilişkin yapının kurulmasına yönelik faaliyetlerin tanımlanmasıa- NAMA’nın uygulanmasına dönük ulusal idari yapının önerilmesib-NAMA’nın geliştirilmesi ve koordinasyonunda yeralmak üzere OGM iş tanımının oluşturulması

c- Diğer ilgili tüm paydaşların görev ve sorumluluklarının hazırlanması

x x

1.5.5. İzleme ve değerlendirme sürecinin denetlenmesi x x2.1 Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü düzeyinde, aşağıdakilerden oluşan, entegre yangın yönetim sistemleri: (i) bir yangın yönetimi bilgilendirme sistemi (kontrol edilemeyen yangının zarar ve risk analizi; yangın tehlikesi oranı ve erken uyarı), (ii) yerel örgütleri ve kamuyu da kapsayan yangın önleme planlaması ve (iii) ilgili yönetimler arasında geliştirilmiş işbirliğiyle birlikte kontrol edilemeyen yangına hazırlığa destek kararı (orman idaresi ile itfaiye).

2.1.1. 5 pilot alanda 5 yıl boyunca sürdürülecek, yerel topluluk ve kamuya yönelik toplum farkındalığı kampanyaları, eğitim programları, seminer ve eğitimler ile kullanılacak video, poster, broşür ve interaktif tabloları vs kapsayan yangına önlem programının hazırlanması ve tanıtılmasıa- Tüm okullarda bilinçlendirme kampanyalarıb- Yerel toplu alanlarda bilinçlendirme (kahvehane, cami, pazaryeri vb.)c- Askeri birliklerin bilgilendirilmesid- Doğa yürüyüşleri, piknik, tiyatro gibi faaliyetler

Orman Yangınları ile MücadeleDış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve Araştırma Dairesi BaşkanlığıOrman İdaresi ve Planlama

x x x

2.1.2. Ulusal ve yerel düzeyde eğitimler, yakıt ve yangın emniyet şeritleri, Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü ile ilgili yönetimler arasında sağlanacak işbirliğiyle bağlantılı olarak karar desteği, erken uyarı sistemi ve kontrol edilemeyen yangın planı vs kapsayan yangına hazırlık programının geliştirilmesia- Yol şebeke planlarının revizyonu

x x

b- Su toplama çukurlarının oluşturulmasıc- Yangın eylem planlarının değerlendirilerek revizyonu 2.1.3. Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü'nün aralama, bakım ve çiğneme öğütme gibi diri veya ölü biyokütle kalıntılarını yüzey yakıtına dönüştüren uygulamalarıyla birlikte ulusal ve yerel düzeydeki eğitimleri kapsayan azaltma programları sayesinde tepe yangınlarının görülme olasılığının %50'ye kadar azaltılması

2.1.4. Kaynakların etkili kullanımının sağlanması için ulusal ve yerel düzeyde, eğitim vasıtasıyla, basın-yayın programının genişletilmesia-Yerel medya araçlarını kullanarak ilanlar ve bilgilendirme

x

2.1.5. 5 pilot alanda uygulama faaliyetleriyle birlikte yangın tehlikesi oranı bileşenini de kapsayan ulusal düzeyde bir entegre yangın yönetimi sisteminin desteklenmesi. x

2.2 Karbon odaklı seyreltme (5000 ha), kapalılığın %10-15'ten %50'ye çıkarılacağı rehabilitasyon çalışmaları (3000 ha) ve endüstriyel plantasyon (1200 ha) gibi geliştirilmiş silvikültürel faaliyetlerin uygulanması

2.2.1. Karbon odaklı silvikültür uygulamalarına ilişkin olarak en iyi uygulama örnekleri üzerinden bilgi paylaşımıa- Uluslararası ve yerel bilgi paylaşımı ve yerinde değerlendirmeb- İlgili literatürün araştırılması

Orman İdaresi ve PlanlamaSilvikültürAğaçlandırmaFidanlıkToprak Muhafaza ve Havza Islahıİşletme Pazarlama

x x

2.2.2. 5000 hektar (her bir alanda 1000 hektarda) üzerinde uygulanan karbon odaklı aralama çalışması-2.2.3. Pilot alanlarda bozuk ormanların iyileştirilmesi (kapalılık oranının %10'dan %50'ye yükselmesi)

2.2.4. Toplamda 1200 hektarlık 5 pilot alanda endüstriyel plantasyonun uygulanması

2.3 Güneş enerjisiyle ısınma ve alternatif ısınma teknolojilerine erişimi ve pilot alanlarda daha etkili yalıtım tekniklerinin uygulanmasını destekleyen mikro kredilendirme programı.

2.3.1. Mikrokredilendirmenin gözönünde tutularak toplantılar aracılığıyla pilot alanlarda projenin tanıtılması ve kamu farkındalığının arttırılmasıa-Pilot köylerde pilot konutb-Örnek ısı yalıtım kurulmasıc-Pilot uygulama yapılan köylere tanıtım gezileri

Orman ve Köy İlişkileriOrman İdaresi ve Planlama

x x

2.3.2. Köylerin tespiti; tespit edilen köylerden gelen başvuruların toplanması; başvuruların değerlendirilmesi; bütçe kısıtlamalarıyla ilgili olarak kredilendirilecek hanelerin tespiti; bütçenin sunulmasıa-Hane kriterlerinin belirlenmesi (problemli köylere dikkat edilmesi)

x

2.3.3. Mikro kredilerin tahsisi

2.3.4. Orman hanelerinin yakacak odun kullanım profillerinin izlenmesi (izleme yöntemi geliştirilecektir; uygulama öncesi ve uygulama sonrası kamu anketleri yapılacaktır)

2.4 Orman zararlılarıyla mücadeleye yönelik entegre haşere mücadelesi sistemi, Akdeniz bölgesinde iki adet biyolojik haşere kontrol ve erken uyarı sistemi, her bir merkezde kurulan doğal predatör laboratuvarları (alan gözlemleri ve erken sorun tespitine yönelik teknolojiyle donatılacak)

2.4.1. Proje alanlarında var olan orman haşerelerine ilişkin kapsamlı bir çalışma (türleri, yayılımı, biyolojisi ve doğal düşmanlar)a-Proje alanındaki zararlı böcek türlerinin doğal düşmanların tanımlanmasıb- Gelmesi muhtemel yabancı istilacı türlere karşı alınacak önlemler

Orman Zararlıları ile MücadeleOrman İdaresi ve Planlama (Bu daire başkanlığının çıkarılması önerilmiştir.)Orman Yangılarıyla MücadeleDış İlişkiler, Eğitim Araştırma Dai.Bilgi Sistemleri Dairesi Başk.

x x x

2.4.2. Bahsedilen haşere mücadele faaliyetlerinde teknik personelin eğitilmesia-Teknik personelin belirlenmesib-Personel stabilizasyonuc-Büro ve arazi eğitimlerid-İlgili kurumlarla yurtdışı bilgi paylaşımıe-Üniversitelerden teknik destek

x x

2.4.3. Son yıllarda ekonomik açıdan zararlı türler tarafından hasara uğramış alanlara ilişkin yazılı kayıtların yıllık olarak incelenmesi, her yıl için kayıt altına alınan eski ve yeni verilere göre risk alanlarının belirlenmesi ve haritalarının çıkartılması, bu alanlarda görülen hasarın ardındaki ekolojik ve silvikültürel nedenlerin belirlenmesi.

x x x

2.4.4. Haşere duyuru formlarının güncelleştirilmesi ve entegre haşere mücadele sisteminin yazılım ve veritabanının oluşturulması x

2.4.5. Haşere zararına karşı doğal kontrolü iyileştirmeye yönelik silvikültür faaliyetlerinin uygulanmasıa-Üretim artıklarının saha dışına çıkartılması ve imha edilmesi

x

2.4.6.Bu alanda çalışan personel için bir eğitim bölümü ve biyolojik kontrol için doğal düşmanların üretilmesi amacıyla iki adet (biri Batı Akdeniz Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü'nde ve biri Doğu Akdeniz Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü'nde olmak üzere) laboratuvarın kurulması

x

2.4.7. Haşere kontrolü için bir erken uyarı sisteminin kurulması

2.4.8.Projenin ilk iki yılı boyunca hazırlanacak entegre haşere mücadele programının uygulanması

2.5 Çıktı 1.3'te tasarlanan yöntemin kullanıldığı, pilot alanlardaki önceden seçilen izleme alanlarında alınan karbon stoğu ve stok değişimi önlemleri. Projenin sağladığı karbon faydalarının kesinliği alınan her bir önlemle daha da arttırılmaktadır.

2.5.1. Karbon stoğu ve stok değişim önlemlerine yönelik veri toplanmasıa-Uluslararası bilgi alış-verişib- Karbon ve biyo çeşitliliği de içeren envanter karnesi oluşturulmalı

Bilgi SistemleriOrman İdaresi ve PlanlamaDış İlişkiler, Eğitim ve AraştırmaStrateji Geliştirme

x x

2.5.2. ENVANIS'in geliştirilerek 2.5.1. kapsamında toplanan verilerin aktarıldığı ve ORBİS ile entegre olacak bir AKAKDO x x x

veribankasının oluşturulması.a- Ulusal orman envanterib- Amenajman plan programlama(APP)c- Uzman ve personelin eğitimi

2.5.3. Arttırma ve azaltma çalışmalarından önce, sonra ve çalışmalar boyunca karbon hesaplamaları için kullanılacak karbopn protokollerinin hazırlanması x x x

3.1 Toplamda 79,960 hektar alanı kapsayan 5 pilot alanda etkili koruma sistemi kurulmuştur.

3.1.1. Hızlı biyoçeşitlilik değerlendirmesi ve 5 alandaki biyolojikçeşitlililiğin orman amenajman planlarına entegrasyonu yöntemleri ile 79,960 hektarlık muhafaza ormanının belirlenmesia-Bunun için önce bir envanter yapılması , Amenajman planlarında biyolojik çeşitlilik bakımından verilerin incelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi gerekir. Amenajman planlarında koruma atanmış bölgeler taslak olarak alınabilirb-Biyolog uzmanların da çalışmasını gerektirir, yalnız orman uzmanları yeterli olmaz.c-Özel çevre koruma alanlarının, milli parkların kapsamında yapılmış olan önceki çalışmaların bu kapsamda değerlendirilmesi (IUCN)

Not 1: Orman muhafaza konusunda belli soru işaretleri var. Muhafaza ormancılıkla ilgilenenlere ne kadar kısıt getirecek? Ekonomik olarak sıkıntılara neden olacak mı? Belli hesaplamalarla sürdürülebilir bir şekilde ekonomik bir mağduriyet yaratılmadan olacak. Mutabakata varılarak, katılımcı bir şekilde bu kararlar alınması

Not2:Biyolojik çeşitliliğin çok iddialı bir terim olduğu burada daha çok bahsedilenin tür çeşitliliği olduğu konusunda fikir sunuldu.

Orman Zararlıları ile MücadeleOrman İdaresi ve PlanlamaOdun Dışı Ürün ve HizmetlerStrateji Geliştirmeİşletme & PazarlamaSilvikültürBilgi Sistemleri

x x x x

3.1.2. 5 pilot alanda yürütülen hızlı değerlendirme çalışmaları tarafından desteklenen biyoçeşitlilik hedefleri doğrultusunda silvikültürel faaliyetlerin belirlenmesia-Öncelikli olarak biyolojik çeşitlilik değerlerinin belirlenmesi

b-Bu konuda iyi uygulamalar görülmesi de uygun olur. Uluslararası uzmanlarla bilgi paylaşımı

c-Her türün, her canlının biyoçeşitlilik uzmanının dinlenmesi ve silvikültürel faaliyetlerin buna göre yönlendirilmesi gerekir. Bölgede yaşayacak biyolojik çeşitlilik ve yabani türler de dikkate alınarak bu faaliyetlerin yönlendirilmesi

d-Silvikültürler yaklaşımlarda doğanın gereksinimlerinin dikkate alınması gerekir

e-Doğa koruma ve milli parkların bu konuda çalışması olup olmadığı konusunda fikir alınabilir, onlarla işbirliğine gidilmesi önemlidir. Projenin çıktılarının da devamlılık adına daha sonra onlarla paylaşılması

x x

3.1.3 Türkiye'deki orman biyoçeşitliliğinin izlenmesi, değerlendirilmesi ve raporlanmasına yönelik bir sistemin geliştirilmesi- Tüm Türkiye için tekrarlanabilecek ve proje boyunca 5 alanda uygulanabilecek bir sistema-Var olan envanter, veri sistemlerinin incelenerek model alınması ve geliştirilerek yeni bir veri tabanı oluşturulması gerekir. Örnek olarak “Biyolojik çeşitlilik, orman ürünleri veri tabanı” ve “Nuhun gemisi veri tabanı”

b-Bu olacak sistemde bir izleme modülü olmalı

c-Bu tip bir veri tabanının bilgi işlemle ilgili de olduğu

x x

belirtilmiş ve işletiminin kim tarafından yapılacağına karar verilmeli

3.1.4. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü için ulusal ve yerel kapasitedeki değerlendirme çalışmalarını da kapsayan, orman biyoçeşitliliği stratejisi ve eylem planının hazırlanmasıa-2007 yılında DKMP’nin yaptığı ulusal biyolojik çeşitlilik stratejisinin orman kapsamında tekrar değerlendirilmesi

b-Bütün ilgili kurum ve dairelerin katılımıyla bir dizi çalıştay yapılabilir. Diğer kurumların yetki ve sorumlulukları da göz önünde bulundurulmalı

c-Eylem planı yerine başka güzel bir isim bulunması

x x

3.2 Peyzaj ölçeğinde Korunan Alanlar ve Muhafaza Ormanlarını yerleştiren tampon bölgeler ve koridorların belirlenmesi, tampon bölge ve koridorlardaki alan kullanımını yöneten komşu bölgelerin mekansal planlarının uyumlaştırılması.

3.2.1. Peyzaj yaklaşımını uygulayabilmek için 5 pilot alandaki tampon bölgelerin ve koridorların tespit edilmesia-İzin ve irtifa daire başkanlığı ile izin irtifayı konu alan yerlerin dikkate alınması gerekir

b-Halihazırda parçalanmış ekosistemler, alanlar konusunda da ne yapılabileceği düşünülmeli

c-Katılımcı paylaşım sağlanmalı, diğer kurumların planlama süreçlerine katılımıyla işbirliğine gidilmeli. Çeşitli kurumların katılımıyla bir toplantı düzenlenebilir

Orman Zararlıları ile MücadeleOrman İdaresi ve PlanlamaOdun Dışı Ürün ve HizmetlerStrateji Geliştirme(Yönetim biriminde OIDP ve ODÜH yer alması önemli)

x

3.2.2. Peyzaj yaklaşımının 5 pilot bölgeden edinilen bilgiler ışığında Türkiye'de tekrarlanabilecek orman yönetimi planlama taslağına entegrasyonu

3.2.3. Koruma alanları ve muhafaza ormanlarını daha geniş alana yerleştiren Akdeniz ölçekli peyzaj planlamasının yürütülmesi x

3.3 Eko-turizm ve odun dışı orman 3.3.1. Pos ve Köyceğiz Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü'nde Orman Zararlıları ile Mücadele x

ürünlerine yönelik olarak Orman İşletme Müdürlükleri ile yerel ölçekli organizasyonlar ve sivil toplum örgütleri arasında kurulan ortaklıklar.

ormanla bağlantılı eko-turizmin geliştirilmesi (her bir alan için eko-turizm faaliyet/tesislerin tanımlanması dahil)a-Saha çalışmasıyla potansiyel alanların belirlenmesi öncelikli

b-Pazar araştırması da eko turizm açısından önemli. Turizmcilerle ortak çalışılmalı

c-Eko turizm konusunda diğer örneklerden, iyi uygulamalardan faydalanılmalı. (Küre dağları, Çıralı, vs.)

d-Biyolojik çeşitlilik, kültürel ve sosyal hassasiyetlerin dikkate alınması gerekir

e-Eko turizm tanımını da irdelemek gerekir. Türkiye’deki diğer örnekler tam olarak eko turizm kavramını karşılamıyor. Doğaya zarar vermeden yapılan turizm olabilir

Orman İdaresi ve PlanlamaOrman ve Köy İlişkileriOdun Dışı Ürün ve HizmetlerStrateji Geliştirme

3.3.2. Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü fonlarından faydalanmak için Pos ve Köyceğiz Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü ile sivil toplum örgütleri gibi yerel topluluklar arası ortaklığın (rehberlik ve teşvik) kurulmasıa-Geniş katılımlı köy toplantıları yapılabilir. ORKÖY’ün hali hazırda yaptığı toplantılarda orada bu alanda ekonomik fırsatlar olduğunun anlatılmasıb-Örnek uygulamaların görülmesi, gezilmesi

x

3.3.3. Eko-turizm koşullarını geliştirmek amacıyla 2.3 No'lu Çıktı kapsamında tanımlanan mikro kredilerin Pos ve Köyceğiz Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü orman köylerine aktarılması

3.3.5. Beş Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü'nde odun dışı orman ürünlerinin geliştirilmesi (değer zinciri ve hasat planları da dahil)

x x

a-Halihazırda var olan ürünlerin belirlenerek değerlendirilmesi. Ekonomik potansiyel konusunda önceliklendirme yapılması, daha sonra pazarlamaya yönelik önceliklerin belirlenmesi. Bunların pazara ulaşımının sağlanması önemli. Bunların göz önüne alınmasıyla bir yol haritası belirlenmeli

b-ODÜH envanter sisteminden faydalanılmalı

c-Farklı türler için proje kapsamında envanter yapılması. Bir envanter yönteminin geliştirilip hasat planlarının yapılması. Hasat miktarının arttırılmasına yönelik çalışmalar yapılması

d-Hasat konusunda köylülere eğitim verilmesi. Toplama usul ve teknikleri önemli, bu konuda eğitimin yanı sıra broşürler de basılmalı. Bu eğitimler yalnızca orman köylülerine değil aynı zamanda muhafaza memurlarına da verilmeli. Bu konu standartlaştırılmalı

e-Köy kooperatiflerinin desteklenmesi ve geliştirilmesi

f-Potansiyel ekonomik değeri yüksek olan türlerin araştırılıp belirlenmesi

g- Mevcut eylem planlarının değerlendirilmesi

3.3.6. ORKOY kredilerinin alınması için 5 Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü ile sivil toplum örgütleri gibi yerel topluluklar ve özel sektör arasında ortaklığın (rehberlik ve teşvik) kurulmasıa-Saha çalışmalarıyla bölgenin ihtiyaçlarının belirlenmesi.

x x x

3.3.7. Orman köylüleri için eko-turizm ve odun dışı orman ürünleri faaliyetlerine yönelik mikro kredi programıa-Köy kooperatiflerinin desteklenmesi ve geliştirilmesi

İş bu rapor Tarafımdan/ Tarafımızdan hazırlanmıştır.

Kıymet KELEŞ Şenay ÇELİK Nuri ÖZBAĞDATLI

Fizik Mühendisi Orman Yüksek Mühendisi UNDP Uzmanı/UNDP

Annex 2: Detailed Project Workplan and Budget for five yearsAward ID: 00070163Award Title: PIMS 4434 FSP BD: Integrated Forest ManagementBusiness Unit: UNDP Turkey-TUR10

Project Title:Integrated approach to management of forests in Turkey, with demonstration in high conservation value forests in the Mediterranean region

Atlas Project ID 00084294PIMS number: 4434Implementing Partner (Executing Agency)

General Directorate of Forestry (GDF), Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

GEF Outcome/ Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name

Atlas Budget Account Code

Atlas Budget Description Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5

(USD)

Total (USD)

Budget Note

Outcome 1 GDF/UNDP 62000GEF71200 International Consultants 25,000 20,000 10,000 17,500 7,500 80,000 171300 Local Consultants 95,125 46,125 26,250 5,000 5,000 177,500 271400 Contractual Services - Individ 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 50,400 372100 Contractual services - Companies 87,250 59,500 52,500 37,500 40,000 276,750 475700 Workshops 46,500 28,500 17,000 7,000 9,000 108,000 571600 Travel 15,200 9,900 5,250 8,500 7,000 45,850 674200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 9,000 19,000 13,500 41,500 7

Total Outcome 1 288,155 193,105 134,580 85,580 78,580 780,000Outcome 2 GDF/UNDP 62000GEF

71200 International Consultants 29,200 19,200 9,200 9,200 9,200 76,000 871300 Local Consultants 250,500 200,000 113,400 46,800 36,800 647,500 971400 Contractual Services - Individ 41,170 41,170 41,170 41,170 41,170 205,850 1072100 Contractual services - Companies 364,770 311,860 264,770 238,270 179,270 1,358,940 1175700 Workshops 130,000 110,000 125,000 89,150 70,000 524,150 1271600 Travel 48,600 32,650 32,800 20,700 41,380 176,130 1372200 Equipment & Furniture 50,000 20,000 300,000 0 0 370,000 1474200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 176,700 151,000 137,000 100,000 51,000 615,700 15

GEF Outcome/ Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name

Atlas Budget Account Code

Atlas Budget Description Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5

(USD)

Total (USD)

Budget Note

Total Outcome 2 1,090,940 885,8801,023,340 545,290 428,820 3,974,270Outcome 3 GDF/UNDP 62000GEF

71200 International Consultants 10,000 12,500 0 0 0 22,500 1671400 Contractual Services - Individ 20,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 80,000 1772100 Contractual services - Companies 340,700 255,000 151,800 45,000 50,400 842,900 1875700 Workshops 135,000 80,000 120,000 60,000 10,000 405,000 1971600 Travel 29,180 25,550 25,000 18,000 6,500 104,230 2072200 Equipment & Furniture 15,000 0 10,000 0 0 25,000 2172610 Micro Capital Grants - Credit 100,000 100,000 200,000 2274200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 35,000 16,000 20,000 15,100 86,100 23

Total Outcome 3 549,880 428,050 442,800 253,000 92,000 1,765,730Project Mngmt, GDF/UNDP 62000GEF

71400 Contractual Services - Individ 83,550 83,550 83,550 83,550 83,550 417,750 2472100 Contractual services - Companies 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 2571600 Travel 10,480 10,480 10,480 10,480 10,480 52,400 2672200 Equipment and Furniture 10,000 7,500 17,500 2772400 Communic & Audio Equip 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,850 2,000 10,850 2874500 Miscellaneous Expenses 200 300 400 300 300 1,500 29

Total Management 126,230 123,830 116,430 117,180 116,330 600,000GRAND TOTAL 2,055,2051,630,8651,717,1501,001,050 715,730 7,120,000

Budget Notes:

Budget Note

Explanation

1 International LULUCF Expert covering work under Output 1.1 – 3,000*10 weeks=30,000; International NAMA Expert under Output 1.5 – 3,000*15 weeks=45,000; International Evaluation Expert for mid-term and final evaluation of Outcome 1- 2,500*2weeks=5,000

2 Local LULUCF Expert covering work under Output 1.1. – 2,500*42 weeks=105,000; Local Policy Expert covering work under 1.2. – 1,250*12 weeks=15,000; Local NAMA Expert work under Output 1.5. – 2,500*14 weeks=35,000; Local Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Expert covering Output 1.2. and 1.4. – 1,250*6 weeks=7,500; Local MRV Expert covering Output 1.4. – 2,500*6 weeks. Local consultants will be working in collaboration with international consultants for regulatory and methodology enhancements, capacity development, LULUCF, MRV system and NAMA. Details provided in Annex C.

3 Project Manager (PM) and Project Associate (PA) technical input to Outcome 1. PM will allocate 9% of his/her time while PA will allocate 17% of his/her time for technical coordination of Outcome 1.

4 Subcontractors for stakeholder consultation meetings and national/regional knowledge-sharing meetings covering Output 1.1. – 1.5. This budget line covers meetings at national and regional level for capacity building and awareness raising activities of Outcome 1.

5 This budget line covers technical workshops to be held at local and national level for Output 1.1. – 1.5.6 Travel of local and international consultants (International and Local LULUCF Expert, International and Local NAMA Expert, International

Evaluation Expert, Local Policy Expert, Local SFM Expert and Local MRV Expert) for implementation of Outcome 1.7 Printing and publication of knowledge products, posters, leaflets and workshop materials to be prepared under Output 1.1. – 1.5.8 International MRV and Carbon Accounting (MRV) Expert covering work under Output 2.5 – 3,000*12 weeks=36,000; International Fire

Management Expert covering works under Output 2.1. – 2,500*4 weeks=10,000; International Silviculture Expert covering work under Output 2.2. – 2,500*4 weeks=10,000; International Pest Management Expert covering works under Output 2.4. - 2,500*4weeks=10,000; International Evaluation Expert for mid-term and final evaluation of Outcome 2- 2,500*4weeks=10,000

9 Local Fire Management Expert covering work under Output 2.1. – 1,250*80weeks=100,000; Local Silviculture Expert covering work under 2.2. – 1,250*80weeks=100,000; Local Micro-Credit Expert covering work under Output 2.3. – 2,500*22 weeks=55,000; Local Pest Management Expert covering work under Output 2.4. – 1,250*118weeks=147,500; Local GIS Expert covering work under Output 2.5. – 1,250*14weeks=17,500; Local Plantation Expert covering works under Output 2.2. – 2,500*25weeks=62,500; Local Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Expert covering Output 2.1. and 2.5. – 1,250*82 weeks=102,500; Local MRV Expert covering Output 2.5. – 2,500*25weeks=62,500. Local consultants working in collaboration with international consultants for preparation of LULUCF database and carbon protocols, integration of carbon protocols into forest management plans, monitoring of fuelwood removals, integrated fire management, carbon-focused silviculture trainings, integrated pest management, micro-credit programme for alternative heating systems and carbon accounting methodsDetails provided in Annex C.

10 Budget for technical assistant and co-operation to be provided by service contracts for successful implementation of Outcome 2. Project Manager (PM), Project Associate (PA) and Project Finance Administrator (PFA) will provide technical input to Outcome 2. PM will allocate 37% of his/her time while PA will allocate 27% of his/her time for technical coordination of Outcome 2. PFA will allocate 10 % of his/her time to be used for

Budget Note

Explanation

micro-crediting programme to be applied under Outcome 2.3.11 This budget line covers subcontractors for (i) regional and national meetings for Output 2.1 Integrated Fire Management System in 5 Forest

Enterprise Directorate (FED) (349,650); (ii) regional and national meetings for Output 2.2 Enhanced silvicultural efforts (187,000); (iii) national and local meetings for Output 2.3 Micro-crediting programme for solar energy in 5 FED (122,500); (iv) regional and national meetings for Output 2.4 Integrated Pest Management System in 5 FED (105,000); (v) establishment of LULUCF database (450,000) and preparation/revision of 5 FED management plans (144,790) under Output 2.5 Carbon stock and stock change measurements in 5 FED.

12 This budget line covers technical workshops to be held at local and national level for (i) Output 2.1 (175,550); (ii) Output 2.2 (98,000); (iii) Output 2.3 (25,600); (iv) Output 2.4 (125,000); (v) Output 2.5 (100,000)

13 Travel of local and international consultants (International and Local Silviculture Expert, International and Local Integrated Fire Management Expert, International and Local Integrated Pest Management Expert, International and Local MRV Expert, International Evaluation Expert, Local Micro-credit Expert, Local GIS Expert, Local Plantation Expert, Local SFM Expert) for implementation of Outcome 2.

14 Technical equipment for Output 2.4 Integrated pest management and Output 2.5 Carbon stock and stock change measurements: (i) 15 portable weather stations (15,000); (ii) two pest laboratories (185,000) to be established by the Government as a co-finance, and a server for LULUCF database (170,000).

15 Printing and publication of knowledge products, posters, leaflets and workshop materials for Outcome 2. A documentary film will be prepared to be used not only for training material for dissemination of carbon focused forestry activities but also for awareness raising among stakeholders, to be used during and after project implementation.

16 International Non-Wood Forest Products and Value Chain Expert covering works under Output 3.3 – 2,500*7weeks=17,500; International Evaluation Expert for mid-term and final evaluation of Outcome 3- 2,500*2weeks=5,000. International consultant for non-wood forest products business plan and value chain studies in and around Protected Forests to be identified in Output 3.

17 Budget for technical assistant and co-operation to be provided by service contracts for successful implementation of Outcome 3. Project Manager (PM), Project Associate (PA) and Project Finance Administrator (PFA) will provide technical input to Outcome 3. PM will allocate 14% of his/her time while PA will allocate 6% of his/her time for technical coordination of Outcome 3. PFA will allocate 9 % of his/her time to be used for micro-crediting programme to be applied under Outcome 3.3.

18 Subcontractors for (i) Output 3.1 Improved protection of high nature value forests in five pilot sites covering 79,960 ha (412,500); (ii) Output 3.2 Buffer zones and corridors embedding PAs (Protection Areas) and PFs (Protected Forests) in the wider production landscapes (375,400), and (iii) Output 3.3 Partnerships for eco-tourism and NWFP management (55,000).

19 This budget line covers technical workshops to be held at local and national level for (i) Output 3.1 (175,550); (ii) Output 3.2 (150,450); (iii) Output 3.3 (70,000)

20 Travel of subcontractors and international consultants (International Non-Wood Forest Products and Value Chain Expert, International Evaluation

Budget Note

Explanation

Expert) for implementation of Outcome 3.21 Equipment need to be used during field visits for species monitoring and evaluation, i.e. pairs of binoculars, spotting scopes, sound recorder, etc.22 Government’s micro-credit programme will be directed to the forest villagers to reach alternative income generation activities where protected

forests will be established as defined under Output 3.3. USD 200,000 micro credit facilitation will enhance forest villagers to be benefited from Government’s micro-credit programme for ecotourism and non-wood forest products.

23 Printing and publication of knowledge products, posters, leaflets and workshop materials for micro-credit programme on ecotourism and non-wood forest products’ harvesting for Outcome 3.

24 Cost of Project Manager, Project Finance Administrator and a Project Associate (Annex C of CEO Request provides details on total weeks, weekly rate and terms of reference)

25 This budget line covers management-related meetings for the project management team at local and national level.26 Management-related travel to/from project sites for the project management team to enable hands-on management.27 Cost of 4 computers (12,000), office furniture (5,000), and 4 mobile phone (500) for the project management unit28 Printing of different materials for dissemination of project experience and telecommunication expenses of the project management unit.29 Stationery for office.

Annex 3: ATLAS Budget for year of 2014

Award ID: 00070163Award Title: PIMS 4434 FSP BD: INTEGRATED FOREST MANAGEMENTProject ID: 00084294

Project Title: Integrated approach to management of forests in Turkey, with demonstration in high conservation value forests in Mediterranean region

Executing Agency: General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

GEF Outcome/Atlas

Activity

Donor Name Atlas Budgetary

Account Code

ATLAS Budget Description Budget for 2014

OUTCOME 1:GEF

71200 International Consultants 20.00071300 Local Consultants 35.89471400 Contractual Services - Individ 10.08072100 Contractual services - Companies 59.50072300 Materials and Goods72400 Communication and Audio visiual equipment74500 Miscellaneous Expenses75700 Workshops 28.50076100 Foreign exchange currency loss -71600 Travel 9.90074200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 9.000

TOTAL OUTCOME 1 172.874

OUTCOME 2: GEF71200 International Consultants 19.20071300 Local Consultants 80.000

71400 Contractual Services - Individ 41.17072100 Contractual services - Companies 211.86075700 Workshops 70.00071600 Travel 32.65072200 Equipment & Furniture 20.00074200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 101.000


OUTCOME 3:GEF

71200 International Consultants 12.50071300 Local Consultants71400 Contractual Services - Individ 20.00072100 Contractual services - Companies 255.00075700 Workshops 80.00071600 Travel 25.55072200 Equipment & Furniture 15.00072610 Micro Capital Grants - Credit 074200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 35.000


Project Management GEF

71300 Local Consultants 10.00071400 Contractual Services - Individ 73.55072100 Contractual services - Companies 10.00071600 Travel 10.48072200 Equipment and Furniture 7.50072400 Communic & Audio Equip 2.00073500 Reimbursement cost 076100 Foreign exchange currency loss74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 300TOTAL OUTCOME 4 113.830

TOTAL 1.305.634

Annex 4: Completed and Draft Terms of Reference for PMU

TERMS OF REFERENCE (Completed)Forestry Cluster Coordinator

1. BACKGROUNDWorld leaders at Rio+20 agreed that forests have a significant role to play in addressing many sustainable development challenges. To help fulfill this role and translating the results of Rio+20 into action, there are many cross-sectoral linkages under the following key topics: (a) Integrating forests with environmental and land use policies at all levels; (b) Forests, trees and people together in a living landscape: A key to rural development; (c) Broadening the financial basis for sustainable forest management: wood and non-wood products, services, innovations, markets, investments and international instruments; and (d) Sound information and knowledge base for better policies and good governance.

As per national definition, forests cover 27.2% of land surface in Turkey (a total of 21.2 million hectares). There are over 7 million people residing in the forest areas with a significant population of women, poor and marginalized communities who occupy fragile ecosystems; have meager livelihood assets; and are extremely vulnerable to the impact of climate change, deforestation and desertification. Forests of Turkey are playing a key role for integrating environment and natural resources not only into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy of Turkey, but also into biodiversity protection and poverty reduction of the country, in the context of sustainable development.

UNDP CO and General Directorate of Forestry (GDF) have been working in close collaboration to enhance Turkey’s efforts for sustainable management of forestry sector. The existing collaboration on forestry sector between the GDF and UNDP advances the synergy between forest and sustainable development with special emphasis on inclusive business models, climate change mitigation and biodiversity. This partnership will further strengthen and may become more beneficial when the UNDP CO and Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs start sharing the existing reservoir of knowledge and experience with other countries through collaborative partnerships such as, but not limited to, the Collaborative Partnerships on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF).

Forestry sector is gaining increasing importance for the CO, and possesses the potential to become major line of business in the near future. A critical mass of projects is expected to be achieved in the near future by building on the CO’s past and ongoing initiatives, including but not limited to “Enhancing Implementation Capacity of General Directorate of Forestry for Sustainable Forest Management in the Context of Water Use of Forests in Turkey (aka Forest & Water - F&W)” and “Integrated Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey, with Demonstration in High Conservation Value Forests in the Mediterranean Region (aka GEF-IFM)”. Another GEF-funded project on Solar PV Panels is in the hard pipeline (aka GEF-ORKOY). All of above-mentioned projects have been implemented/executed in collaboration

with the GDF of the Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs. Although above-mentioned projects are important collaborative interventions to support the Rio+20 key topic areas related with forestry, there is a potential for innovative programming on forestry sector for augmenting sustainable management of forests in a holistic way at national and regional scale. A brief description on the projects and their links with forestry cluster provided below.

F&W project, implemented in collaboration with the GDF since 2012, hydrological function and soil preservation function of forests has been studied to enhance capacity of GDF for integration of forest and water context into forest management plans. The project, funded by British Embassy, will be finalized in the third quarter of 2014 with a potential follow up options to disseminate the lessons learned to the Balkan countries through TİKA cooperation. Discussions on the follow up options continue with the GDF and UNDP CO. Forestry Cluster has been benefiting from F&W project with its newly established holistic tools in the forest management guidelines to be scaled up at national and regional level.

GEF-IFM is a 5 years long (2013-2018) GEF Full Size Project, with a 28,550,000 USD budget, including GEF TF Grant as an amount of 7,120,000 USD. The project has a unique structure with its multi focal area objectives (i.e. Climate Change Mitigation, Sustainable Forest Management and Biodiversity) which would provide opportunities to implement activities in a holistic way for integrating forests with environmental and land use policies, rural development, wood and non-wood products and services. More particularly, the project will demonstrate approaches to generating, measuring, reporting on and verifying carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits generated through this integrated approach at five Mediterranean forest sites (over a total area of 450,000 ha). It will then build on these results through the development of a forestry sector NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) covering Turkey’s Mediterranean forests. Laying the foundation for leveraging and scaling up of the project’s demonstration results is thus an important component of the project’s strategy—one which is further made possible by a strengthened enabling environment. GEF-IFM project is the main project of the Forestry Cluster that will be linked with CO strategy and portfolios at all level.

GEF-ORKOY project, to integrate a financial mechanism in GDF’s Forest Village Relations Department (ORKOY), is in initiation stage with an expectation to be started in 2015. This project, to be implemented between 2015 and 2019 with a budget of 22,110,000 USD including GEF TF Grant as an amount of 3,780,000 USD, aims to support the successful launching of a sustainable energy financing mechanism within the ORKOY to provide solar PV services to forest villagers in Turkey. Global environment benefits from this project are expected to be substantial once replication and scaling up of the sustainable energy financing mechanism is successful. It is estimated that approximately 54,450 tons of CO2e being reduced per annum by the end of the project or shortly thereafter. Over a 20 year lifetime of the solar PV systems this works out to approximately 1,089,000 tons of CO2 reduced (54,450 x 20 = 1,089,000) which represents approximately US $3 of GEF money spent per ton of CO2

reduced which, if achieved, is a highly cost-effective number. GEF-ORKOY project is the

project linking with energy sector and climate change mitigation outputs of the CO and related portfolios.

Apart from the existing collaboration between UNDP and GDF, and in accordance with the CO programme repositioning exercise, ensuring exploitation of synergies between various forestry-related projects, which the CO will be implementing in the future, Forestry Cluster will ensure coordination in the context of CO programme repositioning plans.

2. Duties and Responsibilities

Summary of Key FunctionsThe key functions (KF) of the forestry cluster coordinator (FCC) will include the following:

KF1: Innovative development programming in forestry sector of activity to enhance UNDP’s role and contribution in national forestry sector.

KF2: Design forestry-related projects and/or forestry-related components/activities of projects, and promote organization’s capacity as a reliable partner with national and international counterparts.

KF3: Ensure coordination of sectoral activities and manage concerned projects. KF4: Advocate on behalf of organizations’ goals.

The FCC will perform the following services:

Innovative development programming in forestry sector of activity to enhance UNDP’s role and contribution in national forestry sector

Review and analyze the forestry policies and the institutional setup in Turkey, and identify the gaps and improvement needs for innovative programming within the UNDP CO.

Develop innovative programming recommendations on forestry-related national/international initiatives, to which Turkey is a part or can be a part,

Engage and/or facilitate engagement of forestry sector players into CO’s programme through innovative partnerships and projects.

Fulfill additional tasks, as required.

Design forestry-related projects and/or forestry-related components/activities of projects, and promote organization’s capacity as a reliable partner with national and international counterparts

Ensure the technical and financial feasibility of different nationally and internationally adopted or suggested forestry policies within Turkish forestry sector and the UNDP CO interventions.

Communicate and/or facilitated communication with relevant national and international partners to mobilize resources in order to fulfill the UNDP CO interventions,

Coordinate design and submission of high quality Progress Reports, Project Proposals, Technical Documents such as Monitoring and Evaluation Reports and other required

documents in line with UNDP CO requirements, and to the satisfaction and appreciation of the national and/or international counterparts.

Provide guidance on issues relating to the forestry sector and related sectors. Follow the international and national debate on forestry sector, when necessary

participate to national and international events, knowledge networks etc. Follow the forestry sector related funding opportunities and facilities available at the

national level (or regional level as appropriate) to provide guidance with regard to a support mechanism to the existing country office initiatives or to develop new initiatives;

Fulfill additional tasks, as required

Ensure coordination of sectoral activities and manage concerned projects

Ensure successful coordination and implementation of the forestry related projects of the CO, in accordance with the stated outcomes and performance indicators in the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), UNDP Project Documents, and Partnership Framework Agreement between the Turkish Government and UNDP.

Provide coordination and support for the forestry related projects with other portfolios, Supervise and coordinate the forestry-related projects to ensure their results are in

accordance with the corresponding Project Documents, and the rules and procedures established in the UNDP Programming Manual,

Assume primary responsibility for daily project management - both organizational and substantive matters – budgeting, planning and general monitoring of the projects,

Ensure adequate information flow, discussions and feedback among the various stakeholders of the projects,

Ensure adherence to the projects’ work plans, (when required) prepare revisions of the work plans,

Assume overall responsibility for the proper handling of logistics related to project workshops and events,

Prepare, and agree with UNDP and GDF (or other relevant parties) on, terms of reference for national and international consultants and contractors,

Guide the work of consultants and contractors and oversee compliance with the agreed work plans,

Assure technical coordination among consultants and contractors, Monitor the expenditures, commitments and balance of funds under the projects’

budget lines, and draft project budget revisions, Assume overall responsibility for meeting financial delivery targets set out in the

agreed annual work plans, reporting on project funds and related record keeping, Liaise with project partners to ensure their co-financing (if any) contributions are

provided within the agreed terms, Assume overall responsibility for reporting on projects’ progress vis-à-vis indicators

in the log-frames, Ensure effective dissemination of and access to information on UNDP CO forestry

cluster activities and results. Fulfill additional tasks, as required

Advocate on behalf of organizations’ goals

Follow international forestry process such as Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests and United Nations Forum on Forestry, and advice on the necessary harmonization at the national level to be benefited for the UNDP CO’s forestry cluster.

Participate in brainstorming sessions, meetings, and workshops at national, regional and international level and provide inputs in line with UNDP CO, as needed.

Provide inputs and recommendations on forestry related meetings at national and international level via speeches, brief notes, strategic documents and presentations in line with the UNDP CO interventions.

Provide inputs to prepare the corporate knowledge products of UNDP. Advice on the content of communication materials, networking and partnership

possibilities at national and international level. Fulfill additional tasks, as required

3. ReportingThe incumbent will report to the Climate Change and Environment Portfolio Manager at UNDP CO, and where necessary to the other Portfolio Managers, depending on the contexts of the projects.

4. Competencies

Corporate Competencies:

Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s values and ethical standards, Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP, and partner organizations, Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and

adaptability,

Functional Competencies:

Excellent knowledge of sustainable forest management, Demonstrates strong analytical skills, Promotes team work, contributes towards building team consensus, Builds strong relationships with clients, focuses on impact and result for the client and

responds positively to feedback Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude Good teamwork and leadership skills Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities

Development and Operational Effectiveness

Ability to analyze project development (GEF and non-GEF funded) requirements Ability to apply organizational policies and procedures Strong analytical skills

Management and Leadership

Focuses on impact and result for the client and responds positively to feedback Supports teams effectively and shows conflict resolution skills Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude

Demonstrates strong oral and written communication skills Builds strong relationships with clients and external actors Remains calm, in control and good humored even under pressure Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities

5. Required Qualifications and ExperienceThe incumbent should possess the following qualifications and experience.

General Qualifications

Master’s degree in Engineering, Business Administration, Public Administration, Finance, Economics or related field,

Excellent command of office software, such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases

Full proficiency in English and Turkish

General Professional Experience

Minimum 10 (ten) years of relevant professional experience, Minimum 5 (five) years of international professional experience

Specific Professional Experience

Minimum 5 (five) years of hands-on experience in sustainable forest management and integrated natural resource management with special focus on biodiversity conservation and climate change,

Specific experience on holistic project development approaches, At least 5 (five) years of experience at an international organization in project

management and implementation is an asset,

6. Other Considerations Incumbent will be duty-stationed in Ankara.

TERMS OF REFERENCE (Completed)SFM Advisor

1. BACKGROUNDWorld leaders at Rio+20 agreed that forests have a significant role to play in addressing many sustainable development challenges. To help fulfill this role and translating the results of Rio+20 into action, there are many cross-sectoral linkages under the following key topics: (a) Integrating forests with environmental and land use policies at all levels, (b) Forests, trees and people together in a living landscape: A key to rural development, (c) Broadening the financial basis for sustainable forest management: wood and non-wood products, services, innovations, markets, investments and international instruments, (d) Sound information and knowledge base for better policies and good governance

Forests cover 27.2% of land surface in Turkey (a total of 21.2 million hectares). There are over 7 million people residing in the forest areas with a significant population of women, poor and marginalized communities who occupy fragile ecosystems; have meager livelihood assets; and are extremely vulnerable to the impact of climate change, deforestation and desertification. Forests of Turkey are playing a key role for integrating environment and natural resources not only into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy of Turkey, but also into biodiversity protection and poverty reduction of the country, in the context of sustainable development.

UNDP Turkey and General Directorate of Forestry (GDF) work in close collaboration to enhance Turkey’s efforts for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The existing collaboration on sustainable forest management between the GDF and UNDP advances the synergy between forest and sustainable development with special emphasis on climate change mitigation and biodiversity. This partnership will further strengthen and may become more beneficial when the UNDP Turkey Country Office and Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs start sharing the existing reservoir of knowledge and experience with other countries through collaborative partnerships such as, but not limited to, the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF).

One of the projects in collaboration with the GDF is a 5 years long (2013-2018) GEF Full Size Project, namely Integrated Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey, with Demonstration in High Conservation Value Forests in the Mediterranean Region, aka SFM GEF Project. The project has a unique structure with its multi focal area objectives (i.e. Climate Change Mitigation, Sustainable Forest Management and Biodiversity) which would provide opportunities to implement activities in a holistic way for integrating forests with environmental and land use policies, rural development, wood and non-wood products and services. Total budget of the project is 28,550,000 USD including GEF TF Grant as an amount of 7,120,000 USD. More particularly, the project will demonstrate approaches to generating, measuring, reporting on, and verifying carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits generated through this integrated approach at five Mediterranean forest sites (over a total area of 450,000 ha). It will then build on these results through the development of a forest sector NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) covering Turkey’s Mediterranean forests. Laying the foundation for leveraging and scaling up of the project’s

demonstration results is thus an important component of the project’s strategy—one which is further made possible by a strengthened enabling environment.

As highlighted by the above-mentioned project, the project will undertake several policy and institutional revision and enhancement activities to meet the multi focal area objectives. Regarding this situation, there is a need to build common understanding and coordination on project activities with national counterparts.

2. Duties and ResponsibilitiesThe Sustainable Forest Management Advisor (SFMA) will be responsible for developing policy and institutional options to link national needs and global targets as highlighted in the project within multi focal areas, i.e. climate change mitigation, biodiversity, and sustainable forest management focal areas. SFMA will be tasked with building common understanding and coordination with national counterparts on project activities. S/he will be responsible on facilitating the process for coordination of project activities with governmental and non-governmental organisations at other sectors, which are directly and/or indirectly related with forestry sector.

The key functions (KF) of the Sustainable Forest Management Advisor (SFMA) will include the following:

KF1: Analyse project components and develop policy and institutional options for successful project resource profiles and timelines.

KF2: Assess delivery issues and works with national counterparts to build common understanding and coordination on project activities

KF3: Facilitate coordination of project activities with other sectors.

The SFMA will perform the following services:

Analyse project components and develop policy and institutional options for successful project resource profiles and timelines.

Review and analyse policy and institutional options for enhacement of forestry legislation, including but not limited to protected forests legislation, for integrating biodiversity and climate change consequences within framework of the project,

Provide advise and coordinate actions on developing a training system to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity protection, erosion and desertification control within framework of the project,

Analyse pilot activities regarding integration of carbon accounting into forest inventories and Forest Information System (aka ORBİS),

Analyse landscape approach for forest management to be developed within the project and develop options for integrating the approach into national forest management and planning system,

Assess delivery issues and works with national counterparts to build common understanding and coordination on project activities

Assess carbon related activities of the project, i.e. Nationally Appropriated Mitigation Actions (NAMA), Measurable-Reportable-Verifiable (MRV) system, and LULUCF, to build common understanding and coordination with GDF, Ministry of Environment

and Urbanisation (MoEU), Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MoFAL) and other related parties,

Assess multi-benefit focused activities of the project, i.e biodiversity and climate change integration with rural development emphasis, to review and augment existing Sustainable Forest Management Criteria and Indicators at national scale,

Assess and facilitate international cooperation and knowledge sharing opportunities with other institutions and platforms at national and international scale,

Guide GDF staff and project consultants on regional and international forestry platforms to ensure successful dissemination of knowledge reservoir,

Assess the Terms of References to be produced for specific assignments, and provide comments in the context of the project,

Advise on the technical and financial feasibility of different nationally and internationally adopted or suggested SFM policies within forestry sector in Turkey,

As applicable, facilitate communication with relevant national and international partners to mobilize resources in order to fulfill the UNDP CO and GDF SFM interventions.

Facilitate coordination of project activities with other sectors Follow the international and national debate on SFM, when necessary provide advise

to national and international seminars within context of the project, Facilitate coordination of project activities related to rural development, inclusive

business models and sustainable development, i.e. supporting forest villagers and enhancing non-wood forest products, with non-forestry sectors,

Facilitate coordination of business development activities between forestry and other sectors within the framework of the project,

Fulfill additional tasks, as required.

3. ReportingThe SFMA will work under the direct supervision of UNDP Forestry Cluster Coordinator for all of the project’s substantive and administrative issues.

4. CompetenciesThe selected candidate should have:

Corporate Competancies: Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s and Government of Turkey’s values and

ethical standards, Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP, GDF and partner

organizations, Knowledge of UNDP rules and regulations on procurement, human resources and

finance is an asset. Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and

adaptability. Treats all people without favoritism.

Functional Competancies: Excellent knowledge of policy and institutional framework on forestry in Turkey and

in the Region, Demonstrates strong analytical skills, Promotes team work, ability to work in a participatory environment, Builds strong relationships with clients, focuses on impact and result for the client and

responds positively to feedback Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude Good teamwork and facilitation skills Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities

Development and Operational Effectiveness: Ability to analyze project development (GEF and non-GEF funded) requirements Ability to apply organizational policies and procedures Strong analytical skills

Management and Leadership: Focuses on impact and result for the client and responds positively to feedback Supports teams effectively and shows conflict resolution skills Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude Demonstrates strong oral and written communication skills Builds strong relationships with clients and external actors Remains calm, in control and good humored even under pressure Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities

5. Required Qualifications and ExperienceThe expected qualifications of this expert are as follows:

Minimum Requirements Assets

General Qualifications

Master’s degree or equivalent in forest engineering, or related degree in forestry policies,

At least 7 years of working experience with ministries, national institutions and forestry sector in Turkey,

Excellent command of office software, such as word processors, spreadsheets

Full proficiency in Turkish and conversant in English

PhD or higher degree in related fields.

Trainings and experience on forestry, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity conservation,

More than 7 (seven) years of working experience with ministries, national institutions and forestry sector in Turkey.

Professional Experience and Qualifications

Minimum 7 (seven) years of relevant professional experience,

Minimum 5 (five) years of international experience,

At least 5 (five) years of experience in national and international policy making in the forestry sector,

Ability to effectively coordinate national counterparts and multi-stakeholder process.

More than 7 (seven) years of relevant professional experience,

Proven experience on coordinating multi focal area projects with benefits on climate change, biodiversity, rural development,

Good knowledge on sustainable forest management context,

Knowledge in administrative procedures of the Turkish Government.

Specific Experience and Qualifications

Minimum 5 (five) years of proven experience in policy and institutional content of sustainable forest management and integrated natural resource management,

Minimum 5 (five) years of senior position at governmental bodies,

Specific experience on coordination and conflict management at governmental organizations,

Strong knowledge on sustainable forest management in Turkey, including the political, institutional and socio-economic contexts.

Proven experience in working with UN organizations,

Strong knowledge and experience on climate change mitigation and adaptation, natural resource management and sustainable development goals at national and regional level.

At least 5 (five) years of experience in project management and implementation is an asset,

Strong knowledge and experience on regional and international forestry strategies, programmes and implementations.

Notes: Internships (paid/unpaid) are not considered professional experience. Obligatory military service is not considered professional experience. Professional experience gained in an international environment and/or setting is

considered international experience. Experience gained prior to completion of undergraduate studies is not considered

professional experience.

D. PLACE OF WORKThe work shall be carried out in Ankara, Turkey, with frequent visits to the project sites.

TERMS OF REFERENCE (Draft)Project Associate

BackgroundThe Project Associate (PA), will be a locally recruited national selected based on an open competitive process. He/She will report to Project Manager (PM) and assist the PM in the coordination of the UNDP-GEF project. S/he will oversee support activities in project implementation including procurement, recruitment and operations logistics. S/he will assess support requirements against project objectives and operating environment.

Duties and Responsibilities- Assist the PM in managing the project staff- Coordinate the project experts and ensure that their results are delivered on time- Prepare GEF quarterly project progress reports, as well as any other reports requested

by the Executing Agency and UNDP- Act as PM in case of his/her absence- Overall, provide all necessary support to the PM in implementation of the project- Provide general administrative support to ensure the smooth running of the PMU- During the visits of foreign experts, manage their visa support, transportation, hotel

accommodation etc- Monitor the use of non-expendable equipment (record keeping, drawing up regular

inventories)- Arrange duty travel- Perform any other administrative duties as requested by the PM- Provide technical assistance and co-ordination for capacity building activities on

carbon-focused forestry activities and sustainable forest management- Assisting PM for technical co-ordination among consultants to be hired

Qualifications University degree in Engineering, Management or Environmental Sciences or related

fields; 6 years of experience in the area of project management at medium and small scale Solid experience of planning and reporting on foreign funded projects; Good secretarial skills and good organizational capacity; Knowledge in administrative procedures of the Government Good computer skills in common word processing (MS Word), spreadsheet (MS

Excel), and accounting software. Appropriate English and Turkish language skills, both spoken and written.

TERMS OF REFERENCE (Draft)Finance Manager

BackgroundThe Project Finance and Procurement Officer (PFO), will be a locally recruited national selected based on an open competitive process. He/She will report to Project Manager (PM) and assist the NPM in the coordination of the UNDP-GEF project in terms of financial matters. S/he will be responsible for administering the GEF projects in terms of ensuring full compliance with applicable financial rules as well as procurement and contracting rules, keeping the accounts and doing the financial reporting of all financial transactions in coordination with the UNDP ESD Program Manager and NPM and in specific for the compilation of all the relevant UNDP and GEF financial reports.

Duties and Responsibilities- Assist the NPM in managing the administrative and finance staff and ensure that all

information is accurate- Provide logistical support to the NPM and project consultants in conducting different

project activities (training workshops, stakeholder consultations, arrangements of field visits, etc.)

- Organize control of budget expenditures by preparing payment documents, and compiling financial reports

- Ensure financial monitoring/accounting and account reconciliation mechanisms are in line with GEF and UNDP reporting requirements.

- Maintain the project’s disbursement ledger and journal- Perform any other financial duties as requested by the PM- Organize and coordinate the procurement of services and goods under the project- Under supervision of the NPM, be responsible for all aspects of project financial

management

Qualifications- A university degree in social or natural sciences, administration, international

relations, statistics, economics, business administration, management planning or related fields.

- Full proficiency in English and Turkish.- Excellent command of office software, such as word processors, spreadsheets,

databases.- At least 6 years of proven experience in the relevant field.- Minimum 3 years specialized experience strong accounting and financial reporting

background.- Good knowledge of computer software’s such as MS Project and other relevant

financial/administrative monitoring tools.- Proven experience in administration, programme planning, monitoring and reporting.

Annex 5: Site Information SheetsPilot site 1: Koycegiz Forest District DirectorateSection 1. General information

Name of the forest district KÖYCEĞİZ* Average age of stands 80 years for coniferous, 60 years for deciduousSize of the district, ha 119,077.5 % of degraded forests out of the total

area of forests (crown density between 10-15%)

There are 19,122.5 ha area having crown density between 11-40%. 1/6 of these area approximately 3,187.08 ha is 10-15%

Area of forests within the district, ha

68,709 Human population density within the district, persons/ha

23,929*/ 119,077.5= 0.201*Rural population TUIK 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr)

% of forests out of the total area of district

57.70 % Who owns and who manages the forests STATE (GDF)

Proportion between broadleaved and coniferous

stands

Deciduous/Coniferous:0.0046 as areal; 0.0145 as growing stock

Is clear-cut felling for timber production happening in the district, if yes, state how many ha are clear-cut annually?

YES. 291 hec approximately. There is 2,909 hec regeneration area belonging to Pinus brutia in the region. 1/10 of this area is regenerated by clear-cut felling annually

Source: ENVANIS database for 2009

Section 2. Important biodiversity and how it is affected by fires, pests, and illicit logging Table 2.1: Important species and their habitats

Biotope/community/vegetation type (group) within the forest district

Geographic Position Taxon Taxon Name EndemicLocal

Endemic

IUCN Red List

Regional/National Red List Criteria

Maquis

Lowland Mixed Maquis(0-800 m)

Plant Allium callimischon ssp. haemostictum - VU B1, B2Plant Allium fethiyense Yes - NT A2Plant Allium junceum ssp. tridentatum Yes NT B2Plant Allium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Alyssum caricum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Apera baytopiana Yes EN A1, A2Plant Arenaria luschanii Yes VU A1, A2Plant Campanula telmessi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Euphorbia austroanatolica Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Scorzonera lasiocarpa Yes EN A1, A2Plant Sedum eriocarpum ssp. caricum Yes EN B1Plant Silene cryptoneura Yes VU A1Plant Teucrium alyssifolium Yes CR A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Thlaspi cariense Yes EN A1, A2Plant Thymus cariensis Yes CR A1, A2Plant Velezia pseudorigida Yes VU A1, A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum renzii Yes NT A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1

Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Alkanna mughlae Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Anthemis karacae Yes _ _ A2Plant Aristolochia guichardii _ VU A2, B1Plant Aristolochia sempervirens _ VU B1Plant Bupleurum anatolicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Campanula hagielia Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea austro-anatolica Yes _ CD A2Plant Galium exsurgens Yes _ CD A2Plant Gypsophila confertifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Inula sechmenii Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Iris xanthospuria Yes _ VU A1Plant Limonium effusum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Quercus aucheri Yes NT CD A2Plant Sideritis albiflora Yes _ CD A2Plant Silene cariensis Yes _ CD A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Verbascum demirizianum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum mykales Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Halcyon smyrnensis LC EN B1, C1Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRMammal Monachus monachus CR (CR) A1, B1, C1Amphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1Reptile Caretta caretta EN (EN) A1, B1, B3, C1Reptile Trionyx triunguis CR CR B1, C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VU

Plant Colutea melanocalyx subsp. melanocalyx Yes EN

Plant Acantholimon koeycegizicum Yes CR

Plant Silene koycegizensis Yes CR

MaquisKermes Oak(500-1300 m)

Plant Allium callimischon ssp. haemostictum - VU B1, B2Plant Apera baytopiana Yes EN A1, A2Plant Arenaria luschanii Yes VU A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Euphorbia austroanatolica Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Sedum eriocarpum ssp. caricum Yes EN B1Plant Silene cryptoneura Yes VU A1Plant Teucrium alyssifolium Yes CR A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum latisepalum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum renzii Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum trapifolium Yes VU A1, A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Aristolochia guichardii _ VU A2, B1Plant Aristolochia sempervirens _ VU B1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Bupleurum anatolicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Convolvulus cassius _ VU B1Plant Galium exsurgens Yes _ CD A2Plant Gypsophila confertifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Limonium effusum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis albiflora Yes _ CD A2Plant Silene cariensis Yes _ CD A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2

Amphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa EN


Lowland Broad-leaved Forest

Floodplain Oriental Sweetgum Forest(0-300 m)

Plant Liquidambar orientalis VU A1, A2Bird Accipiter brevipes LC VU C1Bird Halcyon smyrnensis LC EN B1, C1Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRMammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Dragonfly Ceriagrion georgifreyi Yes Yes _ NT A2, A4, C1Dragonfly Lindenia tetraphylla _ _ C1Dragonfly Onychogomphus assimilis VU VU A1, C1

Lowland Broad-leaved Forest

Riverine Oriental Sweetgum Forests(0-800 m)

Plant Liquidambar orientalis VU A1, A2Plant Oenanthe cyclocarpa Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Bird Accipiter brevipes LC VU C1Bird Halcyon smyrnensis LC EN B1, C1Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VU

Lowland Needle-leaved Forest

Coastal Red Pine Forest(0-800 m)

Plant Allium callimischon ssp. haemostictum - VU B1, B2Plant Allium fethiyense Yes - NT A2Plant Allium junceum ssp. tridentatum Yes NT B2Plant Allium sandrasicum Yes NT A2

Plant Alyssum caricum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Apera baytopiana Yes EN A1, A2Plant Arenaria luschanii Yes VU A1, A2Plant Campanula telmessi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Euphorbia austroanatolica Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Pilosella sandrasica Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Scorzonera lasiocarpa Yes EN A1, A2Plant Sedum eriocarpum ssp. caricum Yes EN B1Plant Silene cryptoneura Yes VU A1Plant Silene sordida Yes VU A1, A2Plant Silene tunicoides Yes NT A2Plant Teucrium alyssifolium Yes CR A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Thlaspi cariense Yes EN A1, A2Plant Thymus cariensis Yes CR A1, A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum renzii Yes NT A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Alkanna mughlae Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Anthemis karacae Yes _ _ A2Plant Aristolochia guichardii _ VU A2, B1Plant Aristolochia poluninii Yes _ CD A2Plant Aristolochia sempervirens _ VU B1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Bupleurum anatolicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Campanula hagielia Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea austro-anatolica Yes _ CD A2Plant Convolvulus cassius _ VU B1

Plant Galium exsurgens Yes _ CD A2Plant Gypsophila confertifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Inula sechmenii Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Iris xanthospuria Yes _ VU A1Plant Limonium effusum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Quercus aucheri Yes NT CD A2Plant Sideritis albiflora Yes _ CD A2Plant Silene cariensis Yes _ CD A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Verbascum demirizianum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum mykales Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Halcyon smyrnensis LC EN B1, C1Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRMammal Monachus monachus CR (CR) A1, B1, C1Amphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1Reptile Caretta caretta EN (EN) A1, B1, B3, C1Reptile Trionyx triunguis CR CR B1, C1


Plant Acantholimon koeycegizicum Yes CRPlant Silene koycegizensis Yes CR


Lowland Red Pine Forest(800-1500 m)

Plant Arenaria luschanii Yes VU A1, A2Plant Bolanthus thymoides Yes NT A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Euphorbia austroanatolica Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria baskilensis Yes EN A1, A2Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2

Plant Paronychia chionaea Yes A2Plant Salix purpurea ssp. leucodermis Yes EN B1, B2Plant Sedum eriocarpum ssp. caricum Yes EN B1Plant Silene cryptoneura Yes VU A1Plant Teucrium alyssifolium Yes CR A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum renzii Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum trapifolium Yes VU A1, A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Bupleurum anatolicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Convolvulus cassius _ VU B1Plant Galium exsurgens Yes _ CD A2Plant Gypsophila confertifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Silene cariensis Yes _ CD A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRAmphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1


Montane Needle-leaved Forest

Black Pine(900-1600 m)

Plant Arenaria luschanii Yes VU A1, A2Plant Bolanthus thymoides Yes NT A2Plant Chamaecytisus gueneri Yes CR A1, A2Plant Ebenus pisidica Yes CR A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria baskilensis Yes EN A1, A2

Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Galium tmoleum Yes VU A1Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Paronychia chionaea Yes A2Plant Salix purpurea ssp. leucodermis Yes EN B1, B2Plant Silene brevicalyx Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Silene cryptoneura Yes VU A1Plant Teucrium alyssifolium Yes CR A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Tragopogon oligolepis Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum adenophorum Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum renzii Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum trapifolium Yes VU A1, A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Bupleurum anatolicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Galium exsurgens Yes _ CD A2Plant Gypsophila confertifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Silene cariensis Yes _ CD A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Haliaeetus albicilla CRBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUAmphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1


High Mountain Needle-leaved Forest

Black Pine(1600-1900 m)

Plant Acinos troodi ssp. vardaranus Yes - EN B1, B2

Plant Centaurea ensiformis Yes VU A1, A2Plant Dianthus eretmopetalus Yes VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus pisidica Yes CR A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Fritillaria sibthorpiana ssp. enginiana Yes EN B1, B2Plant Galium tmoleum Yes VU A1Plant Genista sandrasica Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Gypsophila davisii Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Linum boissieri Yes EN A1, A2Plant Minuartia recurva ssp. carica Yes VU B1, B2Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Muscari sandrasicum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Paronychia chionaea Yes A2Plant Polygonum karacae Yes NT A2Plant Salsola canescens ssp. serpentinicola Yes NT B2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Tragopogon oligolepis Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum adenophorum Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Haliaeetus albicilla CRAmphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1


Juniper Woodlands (1600-2000 m)

Plant Acinos troodi ssp. vardaranus Yes - EN B1, B2Plant Dianthus eretmopetalus Yes VU A1, A2

Plant Ebenus pisidica Yes CR A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Galium tmoleum Yes VU A1Plant Gypsophila davisii Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Linum boissieri Yes EN A1, A2Plant Minuartia recurva ssp. carica Yes VU B1, B2Plant Minuartia verna ssp. brevipetala Yes EN B1, B2Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Muscari sandrasicum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Paronychia chionaea Yes A2Plant Polygonum karacae Yes NT A2Plant Salsola canescens ssp. serpentinicola Yes NT B2Plant Scorzonera sandrasica Yes VU A1, A2Plant Spergularia lycia Yes VU A1, A2Plant Teucrium sandrasicum Yes NT A2Plant Thlaspi leblebicii Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Tragopogon oligolepis Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum adenophorum Yes NT A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Trigonella lycica Yes _ CD A2Plant Veronica lycica Yes _ CD A2Bird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Haliaeetus albicilla CRAmphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae Yes EN EN A1, C1

Alpine Grasslands (1800-3300 m)

Plant Acinos troodi ssp. vardaranus Yes - EN B1, B2Plant Aethionema speciosum ssp. compactum Yes - EN B1, B2Plant Bolanthus stenopetalus Yes Yes EN A1, A2

Plant Cerastium macranthum Yes NT A2Plant Dianthus eretmopetalus Yes VU A1, A2Plant Eryngium thorifolium Yes NT A2Plant Ferulago sandrasica Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Galium tmoleum Yes VU A1Plant Lamium sandrasicum Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Minuartia recurva ssp. carica Yes VU B1, B2Plant Minuartia umbellulifera ssp. fimbriata Yes EN B1, B2Plant Minuartia verna ssp. brevipetala Yes EN B1, B2Plant Muscari muscarimi Yes VU A1, A2Plant Muscari sandrasicum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Paronychia chionaea Yes A2Plant Polygonum karacae Yes NT A2Plant Salsola canescens ssp. serpentinicola Yes NT B2Plant Scorzonera sandrasica Yes VU A1, A2Plant Spergularia lycia Yes VU A1, A2Plant Thlaspi leblebicii Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Tragopogon oligolepis Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum cariense Yes NT A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. sandrasea EN B1Mammal Hyaena hyaena NT EN B1, C1Mammal Lynx lynx NT - C1Plant Bromus macrocladus Yes _ EN A1, A2

Table 2.2: Threat & Habitat Matrix

MaquisForest Fire: Forest fires are not frequent and their severity is not high in Köyceğiz area. However, natural fires are part of maquis ecosystems and it is necessary for regeneration of maquis ecosystems as long as its severity is not beyond a certain level.

Oriental Sweetgum Forest

Climate Change: For OSG forests, the most critical issue is the water regime. Thus, a decrease in precipitation will be problematic for the run off to OSG forests and also any intervention in the natural water cycle (e.g. increased regulation of water for settlements and

(OSG)

agriculture due to climate change) will be harmful to the OSG ecosystem.

Other: One of the main concerns for OSG forests is land conversion into citrus orchards. Protection of the water regime is critical for the long-term protection of OSG species. In addition, OSG forests are highly fragmented and land acquisition to establish corridors is critical.

Red Pine Forest Forest Fire: Forest fires are not frequent and their severity is not high in Köyceğiz. However, natural fires are part of Red Pine forest ecosystems and are necessary for their regeneration, as long as its severity is not beyond a certain level.

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni, Mediterranean Pine Engraver-Orthotomicus erosus, Pine Cotton Cochineal-Marchalina hellenica) in Red Pine Forests of Köyceğiz Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 2,470 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. Almost all of this damage has taken place in Red Pine forests.

Climate Change: Global climate models predict a decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature for Mediterranean ecosystems. Besides for Anatolia, it is expected that continentality will expand through northern Mediterranean territories. As a result, habitat suitability for Red Pine will decrease and Red Pine forest may shrink. However, the overall mechanism of the process cannot be predicted and further studies about the impacts of climate change are needed.

Black Pine Forest Climate Change: Black Pine will be affected by climate change in a similar way as Red Pine.

Alpine Grassland Climate Change: Alpine grasslands are one of the most sensitive formations to climate change. It is predicted that altitudinal shift to higher elevations will be problematic for species restricted to this vegetation belt, as alpine grassland forms the upper boundary of the vegetation.

Table 2.3: Indicator species:

Group Scientific Name

IUCN National Threat

Category

Endemism Species Score*

Number of Forest District Enterprise Species can be

found

Population Status

Large Ursus arctos LC 0.500 193 Low

MammalBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU 0.565 121 LowBird Haliaeetus albicilla CR 0.512 40 Very LowAmphibian Lyciasalamandra fazilae EN Endemic 0.631 4 LowPlant (woody) Genista sandrasica EN Endemic 0.583 1 Low

Plant (woody) Liquidambar orientalis VU Endemic 0.604 10 Low

Plant Silene koycegizensis CR Endemic 0.625 2 Very Low* This score is produced by NCC and Forest Management Planning Department to identify the focal species for each forest district.

Table 2.4: Protected areas, important plant areas, prime butterfly areas, key biodiversity areas, important bird areas, priority biodiversity areas in KOYCEGIZ Forest District

Name of the Area Feature/Status Date Institution Size (he) IUCN Man. Category

Köyceğiz Gölü ve Dalyan

Important Plant Area 2005 WWF-Turkey/DHKD 43,323

Sandras Mountain Important Plant Area 2005 WWF-Turkey /DHKD 112,793Köyceğiz Lake Important Bird Area 2004 DD 14,000Sandras Mountain Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 133,760Köyceğiz Lake Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 39,887Köyceğiz Mediterranean Systematic Conservation Planning (Gap

Analysis)2005 WWF-Turkey/DKM 40,000

Köyceğiz-Dalyan Specially Protected Area 1988 GDPNA (Formerly ASPA)

46,146

Kartal Lake Nature Reserve 1994 GDNCNP 1,309 1aKöyceğiz Wildlife Reserve 2003 GDNCNP 29,026 4Abb. Used in the table: WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature-Turkey, DHKD: Society for the Protection of Nature, DD: Nature Society, DKM: Nature Conservation Centre, GDPNA: General Directorate of Protection of Natural Assets, ASPA: Authority for Specially Protected Areas, GDNCNP: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Park,

Section 3. Calculation of mitigated and/or avoided carbon emissionsBlock 3.1. Loss of forest carbon due to threats under baseline scenario (∆CBL)

Table 3.1.a Current (baseline) loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in KÖYCEGİZ forest districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuel-wood removalsCategory code 3B1a

Sheet 3 of 4Equation Equation 2.2 Equation 2.13

Land-use category

Name of district

Annual volume of fuelwood

removal of whole trees1

Biomass conversion and expansion

factor for conversion of removals in

merchantable volume to biomass removals (including

bark)2

Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground

biomass3


removal as tree parts4

Basic wood density5

Carbon fraction of dry matter6

Annual carbon loss due to fuelwood removal

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat

(m3 yr-1)

[tonnes of biomass removals [tonnes bg dm

(m3 yr-1) tonnes m-3

[tonnes C(tonnes C yr-1)

(m3 of removals) –

1](tonne ag dm)-

1] (tonne dm)-1]

Local statistics Table 4.5

zero (0) or

Local statisticsTables 4.13 and

4.14

0.5 or LBfuelwood = [FGtrees *

Table 4.4Table 4.3 BCEFR * (1+R) + FGpart

* D] * CFFGtrees BCEFR R FGpart D CF LBfuelwood

Forest land Forest landKöycegiz 481 0.614 0.29 78.3 0.446 0.51 212.0

1) Obtained from standing tree cuttings reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year)

2) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.614; Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.757 (TOLUNAY 2010)3) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.29 Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)4) Obtained from dead trees and cutting residuals reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 5) For coniferous: 0.446; for deciduous 0.541 (TOLUNAY 2010)6) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006)

Table 3.1.b. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from fire in KÖYCEĞİZ forest district

Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UseCategory Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (FIRE)Category code 3B1aSheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: KÖYCEĞİZ )Equation Equation 2.2

Land use cetegory Sub categories Burned Area Average of

AGB Ratio of Carbon FractionAnnual Loss of C,

tons Carbonİnitial

in Reporting Year1 A (Ha)2

Bw Ton dry matter/ha R AG to BG3 CF

L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF

L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF

FL FL Ground Fire 6.99 1.48 0 0.51 5.285Passive Crown Fire 15.73 2.52 0 0.51 20.231Active Crown Fire 12.23 3.81 0 0.51 23.753Total 34.95 49.269

Clarifications and assumptions: 1. Definition of ground fire as used in this table is 20% of total burned area

a. Definition of passive crown fire as used in this table is 45% of total burned areab. Definition of active crown fire as used in this table is 35% of total burned area

2. The statistics about annual area burnt under different types of fire is based on 15 years average of fire statistics of related Forest Enterprise Directorate3. For this case, the organic content of the other below ground biomass pools is ignored for conservatism, because underground biomass remains still alive

in the areas, especially covering maquis, after fire in the site. However, litter, dead wood and above ground biomass (Epigeous biomass) are taken into account.

Table 3.1.c. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from pests in KÖYCEGIZ forest district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (pests)Category code 3B1a


Land-use category

Name of district

Area affected by pests

Average annual above-ground

biomass increment of areas affected


biomass

Carbon fraction of dry matter

Annual losses of carbon to pests

Initial land use Land use after impact of threat

(ha yr-1) (tonnes dm ha-1)[tonnes bg dm [tonnes C (tonnes C

(tonne ag dm)-1] (tonne dm)-1] yr-1)National statistics or international

data sourcesTable 4.9

zero (0) or 0.5 orLBpests = A * BW * (1+R) * CF * fd5Table 4.4 Table 4.3

Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Köycegiz 2,470 1.348 0.29 0.51 1,314.31

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all annual biomass (fd = 1) while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 60 ) of the average annual biomass increment

1) Affected areas reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (ha / year) 2) Average bove-ground biomass existing on the side (ton/ha) (AGB = Iv × BCEF1) 3) For coniferous: 0.29; for deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)4) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006 Table 4.3)5) Fd damage ratio was calculated as in portion of mean average carbon loss given in the NIR’s to the carbon in average above ground biomass of relevant forest region. Fd is calculated

as 0.60 for Köycegiz Forest District.6) Detailed information about calculation process can be followed in the Annex titled “ BIOMASS LOSS CALCULATIONS”

Table 3.1.d. Total annual decrease in carbon stocks due to fires, pests and illicit logging in KOYCEGIZ forest district under baseline scenario (∆CBL)

∆CBL=LBfuelwood + LBfires+ LBpests (in tonnes C yr-1)1,575.58 [Note: This is Equation 2.11 as per IPCC LULUCF 2006 Guidelines]

Block 3.2. Loss of forest carbon due to threats under project scenario (∆CPL)

Table 3.2.a Projected loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in KÖYCEGIZ forest district after the project Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuelwood removalsCategory code 3B1a

Sheet 3 of 4

EquationEquation

2.2 Equation 2.13

Land-use category

Name of district


removal of whole trees

Biomass conversion and

expansion factor for conversion of removals in merchantable

volume to biomass removals

(including bark)

Ratio of below-ground biomass

to above-ground biomass


removal as tree parts

Basic wood density

Carbon fraction of dry

matter

Annual carbon loss due to fuelwood

removal under project scenario

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat

(m3 yr-1)

[tonnes of biomass removals

[tonnes bg dm(m3 yr-1) tonnes m-3


(m3 of removals) –1]

(tonne ag dm)-

1] (tonne dm)-1]

Forecast* Table 4.5

zero (0) or

Forecast*Tables 4.13

and 4.14


Table 4.4

Table 4.3 BCEFR * (1+R) + FGpart * D] *

CFFGtrees BCEFR R FGpart D CF LPfuelwood

Forest land

Forest land

Köycegiz 147,1 0,614 0,29 23,9 0,446 0,51 64,9

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the forecast volume of the removal of fuel wood by local people (which is 388 m3 less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.a, the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.3 (Micro-crediting program). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, by providing an alternative source of energy, the project will achieve a 100% reduction in illicit fuel wood withdrawal by at least 1,100 families. Thus, the project scenario is different to the baseline scenario by the figure of 147.1 cubic meters of wood withdrawal in total for removal of whole trees, and 23.9 cubic meters per year for tree parts

EMISSIONS DISPLACEMENT/ LEAKAGE:

Output 2.3 will stop illicit logging of fire-wood by app. 1100 families. Does it mean that after the project, the families will do logging in neighboring forest land as compensation?

According to the data from Forest Village Affairs Directorate (FVA) of GDF, solar panel will decrease the fuelwood need per family as 3.75 m3. In total of 5 sites, the illicit logging has an impact of 13,500 m3. According to Table 3.1.a – baseline scenario – total annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Köyceğiz is 559.3 m3. As shown by this figure, share of Köyceğiz in all 5 sites is 0.04 (559.3/13,500). Consequently, 4 per cent of 1,100 families, i.e., 46 families, will be those located in Köyceğiz who will benefit from the project. According to FVA data, total amount of annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Köyceğiz is 46 families x 3.75 m3 = 172.5 m3. As calculated in Table 3.2.a, total annual amonut of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Köyceğiz is 171 m3. Ultimately, the project will fully satisfy the energy needs of the targeted families for domestic water heating by solar panel, thus they will not need to resort to any illicilt fuel wood cutting for water heating anymore. The project will implement monitoring of contractual arrangements: each transaction will be based on a contract between the Fund and the client, stipulate committing of the recipient to refrain from fuel wood cutting. The project will help set up systems for ensuring compliance. Therefore, there is no displacement resulting from the implementation of the restoration project.

PERMANENCE / FUTURE LAND USE MODEL

Explain what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that illicit logging does not reappear in the same area – who will inspect and monitor the safety of the carbon stocks after the project?

Continuation of solar energy systems to be established at houses will per se serve to prevent reappearance of illicit fuelwood cutting. Extended warranty and technical support from the firms will be stipulated in the contracts, which will serve to ensure the permanence of the solar utilization. Besides, GDF’s regular protective measures and activities, including forest guard system and regulatory sanctions, will also carry on.

CARBON MONITORING

State which site-based methods will be used to measure, verify and report on GHG emissions before after completion of Output 2.3

State methods briefly, then refer to Annex K (Carbon Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification system that will be designed and used in the project) for further details.

IPCC 2006 LULUCF: Criminal reports relevant to illicit cuttings are prepared and certified by the Forest Guards for each such event. All of the reports prepared by the officers compiled and archived in an office called as “Crime Monitoring Service” in the forest directorates. Summing of the cutting amounts given in these reports annually show the total volume loss due to illicit cuttings occurred in a year in the region. It is possible to calculate carbon loss in a given area as annually or periodically by means of the current annual totals and using the worksheets of LULUCF 2006 (3B1a; sheet 3of 4). Comparison of the sheets sequentially will represent an appropriate method for monitoring the impact of output 2.3

State any negative environmental or socio-economic effects that implementation of Output 2.3 might bring, and ways to mitigate them in the project

There is no negative environmental or socio-economic effect.

Benefits for local people from Output 2.3

Please quantify economic benefits for local people (number of people, what economic activities – hunting, mushrooms, cranberries), % increase in their income

Key benefits for local people will include the following:

sharp reduction in exposure to contaminants associated with indoor burning of fuelwood; time savings for reduced fuelwood gathering, with potential for associated income increases; Living conditions, thus well-being of 1,100 families will be improved.

Involvement of women in Output 2.3 and/or benefits for women from the activity

Solar energy will greatly serve to remove the dependence of rural villagers, especially of women, on harvesting fuel wood to meet household energy needs (a labor intensive and time consuming occupation that has an opportunity cost in respect of the time budget available for education, travel and alternative income generation.

Training for forest-users, communities, research institutions to implement Output 2.3

For those land-user/communities/monitoring institutions who will be involved in Output 2.3, is the training on carbon measurement and monitoring necessary, as well as on biodiversity?

Indeed, local technical personnel of GDF(i.e. forest rangers, forest guards and forest directors) who are involved in measurement of carbon, biodiversity, and land benefits will be trained under the project to prepare and submit necessary records and data to the technical personnel in LULUCF Unit and Forest Management Department.

Also, technical personel at LULUCF Unit and Forest Management Department will be trained to undertake necessary calculations. The project envisages to do this under Output 2.5.

LINK TO CARBON MARKETS / REPLICATION POTENTIAL

Can Output 2.3 serve as a model for other/new similar projects in the carbon markets? If yes, provide justification.

The project can serve as a model and will support replication of its technical approaches to reduced carbon emissions associated with reduced fuelwood use, along with other areas of reduced emissions and enhanced sequestration, through a forest sector NAMA and/or projects to be submitted to carbon markets.

The replication potential within the Mediterranean forests in Turkey is appr. 10,250,000 ha.

Table 3.2.b. Projected loss of carbon from fire in KÖYCEĞİZ district

Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UseCategory Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (FIRE)Category code 3B1aSheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: KÖYCEĞİZ )Equation Equation 2.2

Land use cetegory Sub categories Burned Area Average of

AGB Ratio of Carbon Fr. Annual Loss of C

İnitial Reporting Year in Reporting Year A (Ha) Bw Ton/ha R AG to BG CF

L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF


Clarifications and assumptions:1. Definition of ground fire as used in this table is 50 % of total burned area

a. Definition of passive crown fire as used in this table is 28 % of total burned areab. Definition of active crown fire as used in this table is 22 % of total burned area

2. The statistics about annual area burnt under different types of fire is based on 15 years average of fire statistics of related Forest Enterprise Directorate3. For this case, the organic content of the other below ground biomass pools is ignored for conservatism, because underground biomass remains still

alive in the areas, especially covering maquis, after fire in the site. However, litter, dead wood and above ground biomass (Epigeous biomass) are taken into account.

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target area under fires (which is 6.99 ha less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.b), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.1 (Fire avoidance system). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the size of area burnt annually by app. 6.99 ha (in total 140.4 ha for 5 pilot sites) compared to the baseline scenario. In addition, the proposed activities are forecast that 25% of the active and passive (intermittent) crown fires is transformed into surface fires and additional 25% is totally eliminated through fuel management including thinning, tending and mastication, and through effective use of the resources.


Explain what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that frequent fires do not reappear in the same area – who will inspect and monitor the safety of the carbon stocks after the project?

Mechanisms to be put in place:Continued mitigation activities such as thinning, tending and fuel mastication will be practiced in fire prone areas and also fire prevention activities (i.e. trainings, awareness raising) will be carried out in the localities.

Thinning: Removal of a number of trees from a stand to reduce competition and provide increased room into which the remaining trees can extend their canopies and grow faster. In fire context, to remove undesirable fuel material from the stand.Tending: Removal of a number of trees to favor more desirable trees. In fire context, to remove undesirable fuel material from the stand.Mastication: Mastication is the process of converting live or dead standing biomass into surface fuel by “chewing” or breaking up larger pieces into smaller portions by the means of a front-end or boom-mounted rotary blade or head.

Inspection and Monitoring:Inspection and monitoring of the safety of the carbon stocks after the project is responsibility of GDF to be practiced by the forest district enterprises functioning under regional forest directorate

CARBON MONITORING

State which site-based methods will be used to measure, verify and report on GHG emissions before after completion of Output 2.1.

Remote sensing and satellite images will be used to measure, verify and report carbon emissions before after compelition of Output 2.1. Coefficients specific to pilot sites and equasions for LULUCF GPG at each pilot site will be measured during the implementation of the project through data to be collected via ground observations and measurements related to burned area for obtaining a sound and reliable result. Collected data on type of forest fire and biomass loss obtained from ground observations and measurements undertaken at sample sites will be used to run remote sensing and satellite images. Please see Annex K for details.


No negative environmental or socio-economic effect is expected as all activities will be carried out in public lands (state forests).



The damages caused by fire, notwithstanding certain ecological benefits thereof, may in some cases reduce the extent and productivity of forests, including their potential to supply NWFPs. As a result, local people engaged in NWFP gathering will benefit from Output 2.1.

Forest villagers will have opportunity to be employed for undertaking activities of Output 2.1.


Women in these areas are also participating in forest works. Therefor increased forest job opportunities will also affect them positively.

Women participation to community based fire management activities will be ensured. Involvement of women in the decision making process during round-table meetings will be assured.

Training for forest and emergency workers, communities, research institutions to implement Output 2.1


Training will be provided to fire responders under this component. Technical personnel, fire brigades and local people.

International Fire Training Center recently established in Antalya will be used during this training sessions for technical personnel.

On-site trainings will be conducted for fire brigades in each forest district enterprise. These trainings will involve fire basics, effective use of resources (use of handtools, water and foam use) and fire safety.

Local people will be trained for fire basics, fire environment and fire safety.

Table 3.2.c. Projected loss of carbon from pests in KÖYCEGIZ district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category Name of district Area affected by Average average Ratio of below- Carbon fraction Annual losses of

pests above-ground biomass

increment of areas affected

ground biomass to above-ground

biomass

of dry matter carbon to pests



(tonne ag dm)-1] (tonne dm)-1] yr-1)National statistics or international

data sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Köycegiz 2,470 1.348 0.29 0.51 438.10

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0. 20) of the average annual ground biomass increment.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target fd in 2,470 ha under pest (which is 3 times lower than baseline figure as Table 3.1.c), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.4 (Pest management). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the biomass lost fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 in affected area which is 2,470 ha, compared to the baseline scenario.PERMANENCE / FUTURE LAND USE MODEL

Explain what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that pest attacks do not reappear in the same area with previous high frequency – who will inspect and monitor the safety of the carbon stocks after the project?

Ensuring that Fd: fraction of biomass lost in disturbance will be stabilized at a ratio of 0.2 by site-based implementations of integrated pest management including early warning system, trainings of forest rangers and forest directores, enhancement of biological control at pilot sites, and using natural enemies against pest in the pilot site. Details are provided in Output 2.4. After the project, integrated pest management and early warning system will be run by GDF.


CARBON MONITORING



IPCC 2006 LULUCF: All of the insect and fungus damages occurred in the region are registered by the expert officers on the pest management in practice. The information concerning the magnitudes and damage ratios of the affected areas are recorded by the responsible field officer. Damage reports prepared by the technical officers are compiled and archived in an office called as “Struggle and Monitoring Centre for the Forest Damages” in the regional forest directorates. Summing of total affected areas, in portion of the trees affected by fungus and insects, average volumes of the stands existing in affected areas are given in these reports annually. It is also possible to estimate carbon loss by using the average volumes ( m 3 /ha) and affected areas based on 10 years periodic values, and the LULUCF 2006 (3B1a; sheet 4of 4) worksheets. Comparison of the sheets sequentially will be a good and satisfied way for monitoring the effect of output 2.4


No negative environmental or socio-economic effects is expected. All activities of Output 2.4. for integrated pest management will be in line with minimum standards for pest management identified in “GEF Policy on Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguard Standards”.



The damages caused by pests reduce the productivity of forests, including their ability to supply NWFPs. As a result, local people engaged in NWFP collection will benefit from this output.

Increased and more intensive pest management activities in the field will mean new employment opportunities for forest villagers.


No particular benefits to women beyond those identified above.

Training for forest workers, communities, research institutions to implement Output 2.4


There are two different types of trainings, i.e. technical trainings and hands-on trainings.

Technical trainings will be provided to directors of pest management department at regional level, forest director of the pilot site, forest rangers of the pilot site.

Hands-on trainings will be provided to directors of pest management department at regional level, forest director of the pilot site, forest rangers of the pilot sites, forest guards, forest workers and forest villagers to be employed for integrated pest management.

Table 3.2.d. Total annual loss of carbon to fires, pests and illicit logging in KOYCEGIZ forest district after implementation of project (CPL)

∆CPL=LPfuelwood + LPfires+ LPpests (in tonnes C yr-1)529.92 [Note: This is Equation 2.11 as per IPCC LULUCF 2006 Guidelines]

Block 3.3. Total avoided carbon emissions (TAE) as a result of the project TAE = ∆CBL - ∆CPL (in tonnes C yr-1) 1,045.66

Block 3.4. Additional carbon build-up (sequestration, ∆CPG) due to reforestation, improved thinning and carbon focused timber production (activities under Output 2.2)

Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

CategoryLand Converted to Forest Land: Annual increase in carbon stocks in biomass (includes above- and below-ground biomass) as a result of project activities

Category code 3B1bSheet 1 of 4

Equation Equation 2.2 Equation 2.9 Equation 2.10 Equation 2.9

Land-use category District name

Area targeted by the project


Ratio of below-ground

Average annual

Carbon fraction of

Annual increase in biomass

activity biomass growth as a result of each type of

project activity

biomass to above-ground

biomass

biomass growth

above and below-ground

dry matter carbon stocks due to biomass

growth as a result of project

activity

Initial land use1 Land use during reporting year

(ha)(tonnes dm [tonnes bg dm (tonnes dm [tonnes C

(tonnes C yr-1)ha-1 yr-1) (tonne ag dm)-

1] ha-1 yr-1) (tonne dm)-1]

As set by project design

Tables zero (0) or

GTOTAL = GW

* (1+R)

0.5 or

ΔCPG = A * GTOTAL * CF

4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 for

reforestation or other

coefficients as defined by

national scientists *

A1 GW2 R3 GTOTAL

CF4

∆CPG

Degraded forest with crown-

cover between 10-15%

Forest with crown-cover >

15%aKöyceğiz

600 0.196 0.29 0.253 0.51 77.40

Forest area without or with improper thinning

Forest area with improved thinning (liberation thinning)b

Köyceğiz

1,000 0.735 0.29 0.949 0.51 483.75Köyceğiz 240 6.136 0.29 7.916 0.51 968.9

Total sequestration 1,530.05

* Explanation for the origin of coefficients:1-1/5 of total projected areas for rehabilitation (3000/5 = 600 ha), for enrichment and liberation thinning (5,000/5= 1,000 ha)2- a) 8/11 of mean average annual above-ground biomass growth for the relevant district, b) 6/11 of above ground biomass growth, c) Gw differences between Industrial plantation and Age Classes Method (Explanation is given in the annex titled “ ENHANCEMENT of CARBON STOCK” (Mean average AGB increment of Köyceğiz Forest District is 1,348 ton/ha/year.)3- Root to shoot ratio R= 0.29 (AFOLU 2006)4- 0.51 for coniferous; 0.48 for deciduous (IPCC 2006)


Explain what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the areas subject to enrichment plantation and liberation thinning are maintained with this new higher level of forest management and that the achieved carbon build-up is not lost by reverting to previously less sustainable management methods?

All of the forests are managed with the management plans having similar concepts and contains since 1963 in Turkey. Silvicultural treatments in the stands are implemented regarding the management goals defined by forest owners (GDF for the forests belonging to state) and the management planning methods based on even-aged, uneven-aged, selection and coppice cutting systems ensuring the sustainability of the forest resources. Only the treatment prescribed for the stands are adopted in the planning units if they are defined clearly in the management plans. The management plans for these five forest directorates will be renewed by GDF regarding the targets foreseen in this project. All of the considerations advised in this project will be reflected into the management plans. Thus, all of the silvicultural treatments such as rehabilitations (reforestation/ revegetation), enrichment planting and improved thinning beside the other technical and socio-economic implications to reduce carbon loss, to improve carbon capture as well as enlargement of protected areas for biodiversity protection proposed in the project will be realized along 10 years at least because of their places in the management plans. As a result, reverting to previous system in the stands subject to this project is out of date.

CARBON MONITORING


The effects of silvicultural treatments on carbon increase amounts due to either rehabilitation or thinning and weeding actions those are applied in the project framework will be controlled with IPCC 2006 LULUCF procedure. The worksheet Nr. 3BIa page 1 of 4 may be considered as a tool for this purpose however but, the concrete results of the implications cannot be seen unless 10 years passed at least. In other words, sequential inventory results of the management plans renewed with 10 year intervals should be benefited for carbon stock monitoring. The initial, and later carbon stock amounts calculated with respect to the carbon pools of the planning units will be compared in a table given among the annexes. (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEQUENTIAL FOREST INVENTORY). Additional information is provided in Annex K.


No negative socio-economic effects may be expected due to implementation of Output 2.2 on the people living in the project areas. However, withdrawl of approximately 16,000 ha of forest area from timber production due to designation of new protected areas will result in certain degree of revenue decrease of the state forest enterprises. It is not so easy for the GDF to allocate so huge amount of forestland for biodiversity protection because of the following reasons: i) GDF is the largest and leading wood supplier in the market; ii) the projections show an upward trend on the demand of all kinds of wood products except fuel wood; iii) GDF needs revenue in order to fulfill its responsibilities and rutine activities. GDF has to meet the demand coming from the wood-working industry as much as possible. Thus, it has to find out a way for increase timber production. Plantation forestry is a plausible option at this point. Due to the forcing effects of all the factors mentioned here, GDF has developed a policy on the application of plantation forestry. Short rotation plantation forestry is also promoted as a means of increasing carbon sequestration in forestlands in Turkey’s National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP).

On the other hand, 3000/5 = 600 ha rehabilitation and 5000/5=1000 ha thinning activities (1600 ha totally) that should be finished in 5 years may create some negative environmental effects at the beginning of project. Rehabilitation implementations which should be realized in an area 600/5=120 ha seems a little large for the reforestation and revegetation actions in the stands consisting of Cedrus libani and Pinus nigra. In portion of Pinus brutia may be increased to 3/4 in order to solve this problem. 90 ha Pinus brutia annually can be regenerated easily by the 4-6 forest engineers in the forest directorates, when these areas shared among the sub-regions. Negative effects of clear-cutting may also be prevented by this way too.



Jobs associated with industrial plantations and silviculture Economic benefits of ecotourism associated with enhanced conservation


New employment opportunities due to Output 2.2. will be equally shared by women in the forest villagers.



Forest ranger will be trained for improved thinning and carbon focused timber production. The member and the leader of the forest management planning group will be trained for including carbon focused timber production methodology into the forest management plan. The project envisages to do this unnder Output 2.2.

Pilot Site 2: Andırın Forest Enterprise DirectorateSection 1. General information

Name of the forest district ANDIRIN* Average age of stands 80Size of the district, ha 122,208 % of degraded forests out of the total area of

forests (crown density between 10-15%)There are 6,999 ha area having crown density between 11-40%. 1/6 of these area approximately 1,166.5 ha is 10-15%

Area of forests within the district, ha 39,756 Human population density within the district, persons/ha

3,2889* / 122,208 = 0.269*Rural population TUIK 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr)



Proportion between broadleaved and coniferous stands

Deciduous/ Coniferous:0.112% areal; 0.159 growing stock

Is clear-cut felling for timber production happening in the district, if yes, state how

many ha are clear-cut annually?

YES. 105 ha approximately. There is 1,050.5 ha regeneration area belonging to Pinus brutia in the region. 1/10 of this area is regenerated by clear-cut felling annually.


Section 2. Important biodiversity and how it is affected by fires, pests, and illicit logging

Table 2.1: Important species and their habitats

Biotope/community/vegetation type (group) within the forest districtGeographic Position

General Description of Taxon

Taxon Name Endemic Local Endemic

IUCN Red List

Regional/National Red List

Criteria

MaquisLowland Mixed Maquis(0-800)

Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes ENPlant Flueggea anatolica Yes CR

Maquis Kermes Oak(500-1,300)

Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes ENPlant Flueggea anatolica Yes CR

Broad-leaved Forest

Beech Forest(800-1,300)

Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes EN

Broad-leaved Forest

Mixed (Oak-Hornbeam-Beech Forest(400-1,500)

Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes EN


Coastal Red Pine Forest(0-800)

Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes ENPlant Pinus halepensis VU


Lowland Red Pine Forest(800-1,500)

Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTReptile Montivipera albizona Yes EN


Black Pine-Taurus Cedar-Taurus Fir(900-1,600)

Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU

Reptile Montivipera albizona Yes ENHigh Mountain Needle-leaved Forest

Taurus Fir(1,600-1,900)

Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUReptile Montivipera albizona Yes EN


Juniper Woodlands(1,600-2,000)



Mixed Taurus Fir-Taurus Cedar-Black Pine-Juniper Forests(1,600-2,000)


Alpine Grasslands (1,800-3,300)

Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NT


MaquisForest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Andırın. However, they are not a threat to maquis ecosystems as regeneration capacity of maquis ecosystem is very high. Also, fire supports the biodiversity of the maquis ecosystem as long as its intensity and severity is not beyond a certain level.

Broad-leaved Forest (Oriental Beech-Hornbeam-Oak)

Climate Change: As this formation is a Black Sea Enclave of Tertiory Period, further drought as expected in Mediterranean region and any change in climate system is likely to be unfavorable for this forest ecosystem.

Red Pine Forest Forest Fire: Forest fires are significant in Andırın and make their biggest impacts on Red Pine forest ecosystems. However, as fire is part of regeneration process of Red Pine forest ecosystems, as long as the intensity and severity of the fire does not exceed a certain level, it supports biodiversity of Red Pine ecosystem.

Pest Outbreak: According to figures of last five years pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth – Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni) in Red Pine Forest in Andırın Forest District Directorate is around 750 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. Almost all of the pest damage is in Red Pine forests. However, as its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problem for biodiversity in short term.

Climate Change: Global climate models predict a decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature for Mediterranean ecosystems. Besides for Anatolia, it is expected that continentality will expand through northern Mediterranean territories. As a result, habitat suitability for Red Pine will decrease and Red Pine forest may shrink. However, the overall mechanism of the process cannot be predicted and further studies about the impacts of climate change are needed.

Black Pine Forest Pest Outbreak: According to figures of last five years pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth – Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni) in Black Pine Forest in Andırın Forest District Directorate is around 100 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. As its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not

create very important problem for biodiversity in short term.

Climate Change: Black Pine will be affected by climate change in a similar mechanism with Red Pine.

Taurus Cedar Forest Climate Change: Taurus Cedar will be affected by climate change in a similar way as Red Pine and Black Pine

Taurus Fir Forests Climate Change: As humidity and precipitation are very important for Taurus Fir, it is the most sensitive forest ecosystem to climate change. According to modeling studies conducted by DKM (2010) its survival is under risk.

Alpine Grassland Climate Change: Alpine grasslands are one of the most sensitive formations to climate change. It is predicted that altitudinal shift to higher elevations will be problem for species restricted to this vegetation belt, as alpine grassland forms the upper boundary of the vegetation.


Group Scientific NameIUCN National

Threat CategoryEndemism Species Score*

Number of Forest District Enterprise Species can be found (out of 249)

Population Status

Large Mammal Ursus arctos LC 0.500 193 LowBid Dendrocopos leucotos VU 0.565 121 LowPlant (woody) Flueggea anatolica CR Endemic 0.625 3 Very LowPlant (woody) Pinus halepensis VU 0.563 4 Low* This score is produced by NCC and Forest Management Planning Department to identify the focal species for each forest district.

Table 2.4: Protected areas, important plant areas, prime butterfly areas, key biodiversity areas, important bird areas, priority biodiversity areas in ANDIRIN Forest District

Name of the Area Feature/Status Date Institution Size (he) IUCN Man. Category

Kayranlı Mountain Important Plant Area 2006 DHKD 9,975Amonos Mountains Important Bird Area 2004 DD 362,500North of Andırın Anatolian Diagonal Systematic Conservation Planning (Gap Analysis 2010 DKM 10,000Körçoban Nature Reserve 1993 GDNCNP 580 1aAbb. Used in the table: DHKD: Society for the Protection of Nature, DD: Nature Society, DKM: Nature Conservation Centre, GDNCNP: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Park

Section 3. Calculation of mitigated and/or avoided carbon emissionsBlock 3.1. Loss of forest carbon due to threats under baseline scenario (∆CBL)Table 3.1.a Current (baseline) loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in ANDIRIN forest district

Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UseCategory Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuel-wood removals

Category code 3B1aSheet 3 of 4

Equation Equation 2.2 Equation 2.13

Land-use category

Name of district






bark)2


biomass3



Basic wood density5



Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat

(m3 yr-1)[tonnes of biomass

removals [tonnes bg dm(m3 yr-1) tonnes m-3 [tonnes C

(tonnes C yr-1)(m3 of removals) –1] (tonne ag dm)-1] (tonne dm)-1]


zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landAndırın

5,980.4 0.614 0.29 973.6 0.446 0.51 2,637.2

1. Obtained from standing tree cuttings reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 2. Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.614; Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.757 (TOLUNAY 2010)3. Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.29 Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)4. Obtained from dead trees and cutting residuals reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 5. For coniferous: 0.446; for deciduous 0.541 (TOLUNAY 2010)6. For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006)

Table 3.1.b. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from fire in ANDIRIN forest district


Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (FIRE)

Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: ANDIRIN)

Equation Equation 2.2

Land use category Sub categories Burned Area Average of AGB Ratio ofCarbon Fraction

Annual Loss of C, tons Carbon

Initial Reporting Year in Reporting Year1 A (Ha)2Bw Ton dry

matter/ha R AG to BG3 CF L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF




5. The statistics about annual area burnt under different types of fire is based on 15 years average of fire statistics of related Forest Enterprise Directorate6. For this case, the organic content of the other below ground biomass pools is ignored for conservatism, because underground biomass remains still alive in the areas, especially covering

maquis, after fire in the site. However, litter, dead wood and above ground biomass (Epigeous biomass) are taken into account.

Table 3.1.c. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from pests in ANDIRIN districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category Name of district Area affected by pests Average annual above-ground


Ratio of below-ground biomass to

above-ground biomass





(tonne ag dm)-1] (tonne dm)-1] yr-1)

National statistics or international data

sourcesTable 4.9

zero (0) or 0.5 orLBpests = A * BW * (1+R) *

CF * fd5Table 4.4 Table 4.3

Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Andırın 850 2,163 0.29 0.51 725.75

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all annual biomass (fd = 1) while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 60 ) of the average annual biomass increment(1) Affected areas reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (ha / year); (2) Average above-ground biomass existing on Andırın Forest Directorate (ton/ha) (AGB = Iv × BCEF1); (3) For coniferous: 0.29; for deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006); (4) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006 Table 4.3); (5) Fd damage ratio was calculated as in portion of mean average carbon loss given in the NIR’s to the carbon in average above ground biomass of relevant forest region. Fd is estimated as 0.60 for Andırın Forest District. (6) Detailed information about calculation process can be followed in the Annex titled “ BIOMASS LOSS CALCULATIONS”

Table 3.1.d. Total annual decrease in carbon stocks due to fires, pests and illicit logging in ANDIRIN forest district under baseline scenario (∆CBL)



Table 3.2.a Projected loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in ANDIRIN forest district after the project Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)





Basic wood density


Annual carbon loss due to fuelwood removal under

project scenario

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat


removals [tonnes bg dm(m3 yr-1) tonnes m-3


(m3 of removals) –1] (tonne ag dm)-1] (tonne dm)-1]

Forecast* Table 4.5

zero (0) or

Forecast*Tables 4.13 and

4.14


Table 4.4Table 4.3 BCEFR * (1+R) +

FGpart * D] * CFFGtrees BCEFR R FGpart D CF LPfuelwood

Forest land Forest landAndırın 1,827.5 0.614 0.29 297.5 0.446 0.51 805.9

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the forecast volume of the removal of fuel wood by local people (which is 4,828.85 m3 less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.a, the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.3 (Micro-crediting program). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, by providing an alternative source of energy, the project will achieve a 100% reduction in illicit fuel wood withdrawal by at least 1,100 families. Thus, the project scenario is different to the baseline scenario by the figure of 1,827.5 cubic meters of wood withdrawal in total for removal of whole trees, and 297.5 cubic meters per year for tree parts



According to the data from Forest Village Affairs Directorate (FVA) of GDF, solar panel will decrease the fuelwood need per family as 3.75 m3. In total of 5 sites, the illicit logging has an impact of 13,500 m3. According to Table 3.1.a – baseline scenario – total annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Andırın is 6,954 m3. As shown by this figure, share of Andırın in all 5 sites is 0.52 (6,954/13,500). Consequently, 52 per cent of 1,100 families, i.e., 567 families, will be those located in Andırın who will benefite from the project. According to FVA data, total amount of annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Andırın is 567 families x 3.75 m3 = 2,126.25 m3. As calculated in Table 3.2.a, total annual amonut of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Andırın is 2,125 m3. Ultimately, the project will fully satisfy the energy needs of the targeted families for domestic water heating by solar panel, thus they will not need to resort to any illicilt fuel wood cutting for water heating anymore. The project will implement monitoring of contractual arrangements: each transaction will be based on a contract between the Fund and the client, stipulate committing of the recipient to refrain from fuel wood cutting. The project will help set up systems for ensuring compliance. Therefore, there is no displacement resulting from the implementation of the restoration project.




CARBON MONITORING

State which site-based methods will be used to measure, verify and report on GHG emissions before after completion of Output 2.3 (see Annex K for further details on MRV and carbon measurement protocols)


State any negative environmental or socio-economic effects that implementation of Output 2.3 might bring and ways to mitigate them in the project





a. sharp reduction in exposure to contaminants associated with indoor burning of fuelwood;b. time savings for reduced fuelwood gathering, with potential for associated income increases;c. Living conditions, thus well-being of 1,100 families will be improved.




For those land-user/communities/ monitoring institutions who will be involved in Output 2.3, is the training on carbon measurement and monitoring necessary, as well as on biodiversity?







Table 3.2.b. Projected loss of carbon from fire in ANDIRIN district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: ANDIRIN )


Land use cetegory Sub categories Burned Area Average of AGB Ratio ofCarbon Fraction




FL FL Ground Fire 3.58 1.48 0 0.51 2.709

Passive Crown Fire 2.02 2.01 0 0.51 2.065

Active Crown Fire 1.57 2.66 0 0.51 2.126

Total 7.17 6.899




maquis, after fire in the site. However, litter, dead wood and above ground biomass (Epigeous biomass) are taken into account.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target area under fires (which is 1.79 ha less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.b), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.1 (Fire avoidance system). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the size of area burnt annually by app. 1.79 ha (in total 140.4 ha for 5 pilot sites) compared to the baseline scenario. In addition, the proposed activities are forecast that 25% of the active and passive (intermittent) crown fires is transformed into surface fires and additional 25% is totally eliminated through fuel management including thinning, tending and mastication, and through effective use of the resources.






CARBON MONITORING


















Table 3.2.c. Projected loss of carbon from pests in ANDIRIN districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district

Area affected by pests Average above-ground biomass of

areas affected









sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Andırın 850 2.163 0.29 0.51 241.92

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0. 20) of the average annual ground biomass increment.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target fd in 850 ha under pest (which is 3 times lower than baseline figure as Table 3.1.c), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.4 (Pest management). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the biomass lost fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 in affected area which is 850 ha, compared to the baseline scenario.





CARBON MONITORING





No negative environmental or socio-economic effect is expected. All activities of Output 2.4. for integrated pest management will be in line with minimum standards for pest management identified in “GEF Policy on Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguard Standards”.












Table 3.2.d. Total annual loss of carbon to fires, pests and illicit logging in ANDIRIN forest district after implementation of project (CPL)

∆CPL=LPfuelwood + LPfires+ LPpests (in tonnes C yr-1)

1,054.72 [Note: This is Equation 2.11 as per IPCC LULUCF 2006 Guidelines]







Land-use category

District name

Area targeted by the project activity


biomass growth as a result of each type of project activity



Average annual

biomass growth above and below-

ground


Annual increase in biomass carbon

stocks due to biomass growth as a

result of project activity



(tonnes C yr-1)ha-1 yr-1) (tonne ag dm)-1] ha-1 yr-1) (tonne dm)-1]


Tables zero (0) or

GTOTAL = GW * (1+R)

0.5 orΔCPG = A * GTOTAL *

CF4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 for reforestation or other coefficients as defined by national

scientists *

A1 GW2 R3 GTOTAL

CF4

∆CPG

Degraded forest with crown-cover

between 10-15%

Forest with crown-cover > 50%a

Andırın 600 0.315 0.29 0.406 0.51 124.19



Andırın1,000 1.180 0.29 1.522 0.51 776,22

Forest area managed as Age Classes Method

Forest area managed as Industrial plantationc Andırın 240 5.386 0.29 6.948 0.51 850.4

Total sequestration 1,750.81* Explanation for the origin of coefficients:1-1/5 of total projected areas for rehabilitation (3,000/5 = 600 ha), for enrichment and liberation thinning (5,000/5= 1,000 ha)2- a) 8/11 of mean average annual above-ground biomass growth for the relevant district, b) 6/11 of above ground biomass growth, c) Gw differences between Industrial plantation and Age Classes Method (Explanation is given in the annex titled “ ENHANCEMENT of CARBON STOCK” ( Mean average AGB increment of Andırın Forest District is 2.162 ton/ha/year.)3- Root to shoot ratio R= 0.29 (AFOLU 2006)4- 0.51 for coniferous; 0.48 for deciduous (IPCC 2006)




CARBON MONITORING








a. Jobs associated with industrial plantations and silvicultureb. Economic benefits of ecotourism associated with enhanced conservation






Pilot site 3: Gazipaşa Forest District DirectorateSection 1. General information

Name of the forest district GAZİPAŞA* Average age of stands 50Size of the district, ha 107,376.3 % of degraded forests out of the total area of

forests (crown density between 10-15%)There are 7,223.1 ha area having crown density between 11-40%. 1/6 of these area approximately 1,203.83 ha is 10-15%

Area of forests within the district, ha(Crown closure 11 + % )

34,187.1 Human population density within the district, persons/ha

2,7550* / 100,834 = 0,273*Rural population TUIK 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr)


31,84 % Who owns and who manages the forests STATE (GDF)


As area: 581/34,129 = 0.0017As growing stock: 11,630/4,103,884 : 0.0028



YES. 106 ha approximately. There is 1,061.6 ha regeneration area belonging to Pinus brutia in the region. 1/10 of this area is regenerated by clear-cut felling annually.


Section 2. Important biodiversity and how it is affected by fires, pests, and illicit logging

Table 2.1: Important species and their habitats


General Description of Taxon Taxon Name Endemic

Local Endemic

IUCN Red List



Plant Allium rupicola - VUPlant Campanula telmessi Yes - VUPlant Centaurea aegialophila - ENMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Monachus monachus CR CRMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCAmphibian Caretta caretta EN ENAmphibian Trionyx triunguis CR CRButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUDragonfly Ceriagrion georgifreyi Yes Yes - NT A2, A4, C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NT

Kermes Oak(500-1300)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Plant Eryngium isauricum Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa EN

Butterfly Polyommatus lycius Yes VUButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NT

Mixed Oak-Maquis(300-800)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUPlant Campanula telmessi Yes - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NT

Broad-leaved Forest

Oak Forest(800-1300)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Plant Eryngium isauricum Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes VU A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Polyommatus lycius Yes VUButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU

Lowland Needle-leaved


ForestPlant Allium rupicola - VUPlant Campanula telmessi Yes - VUPlant Centaurea aegialophila - ENMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Monachus monachus CR CRMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCAmphibian Caretta caretta EN ENAmphibian Trionyx triunguis CR CRButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUDragonfly Ceriagrion georgifreyi Yes Yes - NT A2, A4, C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU

Lowland Red Pine Forest(800-1500)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Plant Eryngium isauricum Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Polyommatus lycius Yes VUButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU


Black Pine-Taurus Cedar-Taurus Fir(900-1600)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici EN A1, A2Plant Eryngium isauricum Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Polyommatus lycius Yes VUButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU


Taurus Fir (1600-1900)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Asphodeline sertachae Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes VU A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU

Juniper Woodlands(1600-2000)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Asphodeline sertachae Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Plant Scorzonera longiana Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes VU A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU


Mixed Taurus Fir-Taurus Cedar-Black Pine-Juniper Forests(1600-2000)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NTMammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Asphodeline sertachae Yes EN A1, A2Plant Fritillaria acmopetala ssp. Wendelboi Yes EN B1, B2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Plant Scorzonera longiana Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes VU A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NT

Alpine Grasslands

(1800-3300)

Plant Allium rupicola - VUMammal Miniopterus schreibersii LC NT

Mammal Myotis capaccinii VU LCPlant Asphodeline sertachae Yes EN A1, A2Plant Hypericum imbricatum Yes EN A1, A2Plant Nepeta nuda ssp. Glandulifera Yes CR B1Plant Scorzonera longiana Yes Yes EN A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes VU A1, A2Butterfly Aricia hyacinthus Yes NTButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU


Maquis Forest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Gazipaşa. However, they are not a threat to maquis ecosystems as regeneration capacity of maquis ecosystem is very high. Also, fire supports the biodiversity of the maquis ecosystem as long as its intensity and severity is not beyond a certain level.

Red Pine Forest

Forest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Gazipaşa and make their biggest impacts on Red Pine forest ecosystems. However, as fire is part of regeneration process of Red Pine forest ecosystems, as long as the intensity and severity of the fire does not exceed a certain level, it supports biodiversity of Red Pine ecosystem.Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni, Mediterranean Pine Engraver-Orthotomicus erosus, Mediterranean Pine Shoot Beetle-Tomicus destruens) in Red Pine Forests of Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 1,950 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. As its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problems for biodiversity in the short term.

Climate Change: Global climate models predict a decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature for Mediterranean ecosystems. Besides for Anatolia, it is expected that continentality will expand through northern Mediterranean territories. As a result, habitat suitability for Red Pine will decrease and Red Pine forest may shrink. However, the overall mechanism of the process cannot be predicted and further studies about the impacts of climate change are needed

Black Pine Forest

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni) in Black Pine Forests of Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 100 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. As its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problems for biodiversity in the short term.

Climate Change: Black Pine will be affected by climate change in a similar way as Red Pine.

Taurus Cedar Forest

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Cedar Bark beetle-Orthotomicus tridentatus) in Taurus Cedar Forests of Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 300 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: Taurus Cedar will be affected by climate change in a similar mechanism with Red Pine and Black Pine

Taurus Fir Forests

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Fir Bark beetle-Pityokteines marketae) in Taurus Fir Forests of Gazipaşa Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 720 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: As humidity and precipitation are very important for Taurus Fir, it is the most sensitive forest ecosystem to climate change. According to modeling studies conducted by DKM (2010) its survival is under risk.

Alpine GrasslandClimate Change: Alpine grasslands are one of the most sensitive formations to climate change. It is predicted that altitudinal shift to higher elevations will be problematic for species restricted to this vegetation belt, as alpine grassland forms the upper boundary of the vegetation.


Group Scientific Name IUCN National Threat Category Endemism Species

Score*

Number of Forest District Enterprise Species can be

found (out of 249)Population Status

Large Mammal Ursus arctos LC 0.500 193 LowBird Dendrocopos leucotos VU 0.565 121 Low

Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU 0.524 5 Low* This score is produced by NCC and Forest Management Planning Department to identify the focal species for each forest district.

Table 2.4: Protected areas, important plant areas, prime butterfly areas, key biodiversity areas, important bird areas, priority biodiversity areas in GAZIPASA Forest District

Name of the Area Feature/Status Date Institution Size (he) IUCN Man. CategoryGazipaşa-Anamur Coast Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 27,618Köyceğiz Wildlife Reserve 2003 GDNCNP 29,026 4Abb. Used in the table: DD: Nature Society, GDNCNP: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Park.

Section 3. Calculation of mitigated and/or avoided carbon emissions

Block 3.1. Loss of forest carbon due to threats under baseline scenario (∆CBL)

Table 3.1.a Current (baseline) loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in GAZIPASA forest districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)2


biomass3



Basic wood density5



Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat






zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landGazipaşa 814 0.614 0.29 132.6 0.446 0.51 359.1

1) Obtained from standing tree cuttings reported by GDF’s annual statistics for 5 years average (m3 / year) 2) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.614; Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.757 (TOLUNAY 2010)3) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.29 Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)

4) Obtained from tree parts and cutting residuals reported by GDF’s annual statistics for 5 years average (m3 / year)5) For coniferous: 0.446; for deciduous 0.541 (TOLUNAY 2010)6) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006)

Table 3.1.b. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from fire in GAZİPAŞA forest district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: GAZİPAŞA )






FL FL Ground Fire 3.95 1.48 0 0.51 2.984



Total 19.74 27.821Clarifications and assumptions:

7. Definition of ground fire as used in this table is 20% of total burned areaa. Definition of passive crown fire as used in this table is 45% of total burned areab. Definition of active crown fire as used in this table is 35% of total burned area



Table 3.1.c. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from pests in GAZIPASA forest district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district

Area affected by pests Average annual above-ground










sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Gazipasa 3,070 1.674 0.29 0.51 2,028.64


7) Affected areas reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (ha / year) 8) Average bove-ground biomass increment existing on the side (ton/ha) (AGB = Iv × BCEF1) 9) For coniferous: 0.29; for deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)10) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006 Table 4.3)11) Fd damage ratio was calculated as in portion of mean average carbon loss given in the NIR’s to the carbon in average above ground biomass of relevant forest region. Fd is estimated

as 0.60 for Gazipaşa Forest District.12) Detailed information about calculation process can be followed in the Annex titled “ BIOMASS LOSS CALCULATIONS”

Table 3.1.d. Total annual decrease in carbon stocks due to fires, pests and illicit logging in GAZIPASA forest district under baseline scenario (∆CBL)



Table 3.2.a Projected loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in GAZİPASA forest distric after the project Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuelwood removals



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)





Basic wood density



project scenario

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat





Forecast* Table 4.5

zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landGazipasa 248.5 0.614 0.29 40.5 0.446 0.51 109.6

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the forecast volume of the removal of fuel wood by local people (which is 657.87 m3 less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.a, the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.3 (Micro-crediting program). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, by providing an alternative source of energy, the project will achieve a 100% reduction in illicit fuel wood withdrawal by at least 1,100 families. Thus, the project scenario is different to the baseline scenario by the figure of 248.5 cubic meters of wood withdrawal in total for removal of whole trees, and 40.5 cubic meters per year for tree parts

EMISSIONS DISPLACEMENT/LEAKAGE:

This activity (Output 2.3) will stop logging of fire-wood by app. 1100 families. Does it mean that after the project, the families will do logging in neighboring forest land as compensation?

According to the data from Forest Village Affairs Directorate (FVA) of GDF, solar panel will decrease the fuelwood need per family as 3.75 m3. In total of 5 sites, the illicit logging has an impact of 13,500 m3. According to Table 3.1.a – baseline scenario – total annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gazipaşa is 946.87 m3. As shown by this figure, share of Gazipasa in all 5 sites is 0.07 (946.87/13500). Consequently, 7 per cent of 1100 families, i.e., 77 families, will be those located in Gazipasa who will benefite from the project. According to FVA data, total amount of annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gazipasa is 77 families x 3.75 m3 = 288.75 m3. As calculated in Table 3.2.a, total annual amonut of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gazipasa is 289 m3. Ultimately, the project will fully satisfy the energy needs of the targeted families for domestic water heating by solar panel, thus they will not need to resort to any illicilt fuel wood cutting for water heating anymore. The project will implement monitoring of contractual arrangements: each transaction will be based on a contract between the Fund and the client, stipulate committing of the recipient to refrain from fuel wood cutting. The project will help set up systems for ensuring compliance. Therefore, there is no displacement resulting from the implementation of the restoration project.




CARBON MONITORING




















Table 3.2.b. Projected loss of carbon from fire in GAZIPASA district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: GAZİPAŞA )


Land use cetegory Sub categories Burned Area Average of AGB Ratio of Carbon Fr. Annual Loss of C

İnitial Reporting Year in Reporting Year A (Ha) Bw Ton/ha R AG to BG CF L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF

FL FL Ground Fire 7.89 1.48 0 0.51 5.968



Total 15.79 15.202Clarifications and assumptions:

7. Definition of ground fire as used in this table is 50 % of total burned areaa. Definition of passive crown fire as used in this table is 28 % of total burned areab. Definition of active crown fire as used in this table is 22 % of total burned area








CARBON MONITORING


















Table 3.2.c. Projected loss of carbon from pests in GAZIPASA forest district

Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UseCategory Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (pests)



Land-use category

Name of district











sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Gazipasa 3,070 1.674 0.29 0.51 676.21

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0. 20) of the average annual ground biomass increment.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target fd in 3,070 ha under pest (which is 3 times lower than baseline figure as Table 3.1.c), the

project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.4 (Pest management). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the biomass lost fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 in affected area which is 3,070 ha, compared to the baseline scenario.





CARBON MONITORING

















Table 3.2.d. Total annual loss of carbon to fires, pests and illicit logging in GAZIPASA forest district after implementation of project (CPL)








Land-use categoryDistrict name






Average annual


ground




result of project activity**

Initial land use1 Land use during (ha) (tonnes dm [tonnes bg dm (tonnes dm [tonnes C (tonnes C yr-1)

reporting year

ha-1 yr-1) (tonne ag dm)-1] ha-1 yr-1) (tonne dm)-1]


Tables zero (0) or

GTOTAL = GW * (1+R)

0.5 or

ΔCPG = A * GTOTAL * CF4.9, 4.10 and 4.12

for reforestation or other coefficients as defined by national

scientists *

A1 GW2 R3 GTOTAL

CF4

∆CPG


between 10-15%


Gazipaşa 600 0.243 0.29 0.3140.51 96.12



Gazipaşa1000 0.913 0.29 1.178 0.51 600.78

Forest area managed as Industrial plantation

Forest area managed as Industrial plantationc Gazipaşa 240 5.947 0.29 7.672 0.51 939.0

Total sequestration 1,635.9* Explanation for the origin of coefficients:1-1/5 of total projected areas for rehabilitation (3000/5 = 600 ha), for enrichment and liberation thinning (5,000/5= 1,000 ha)2- a) 8/11 of mean average annual above-ground biomass growth for the relevant district, b) 6/11 of above ground biomass growth, c) Gw differences between Industrial plantation and Age Classes Method (Explanation is given in the annex titled “ ENHANCEMENT of CARBON STOCK” ( Mean average AGB increment of Gazipaşa Forest District is 1.674 ton/ha/year.)3- Root to shoot ratio R= 0.29 (AFOLU 2006)4-0.51 for coniferous; 0.48 for deciduous (IPCC 2006)




CARBON MONITORING







Pilot site 4: Gülnar Forest District DirectorateSection 1. General information

Name of the forest district GÜLNAR* Average age of stands 80Size of the district, ha 183,208 % of degraded forests out of the total area of


Area of forests within the district, ha 56,413 Human population density within the district, persons/ha

22,762* / 183,208 = 0.124*Rural population TUIK 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr)


30.79% Who owns and who manages the forests STATE (GDF)


100% Coniferous. Is clear-cut felling for timber production happening in the district, if yes, state how


YES. 351 hec approximately. There is 3,509 hec regeneration area belonging to Pinus brutia in the region. 1/10 of this area is regenerated by clear-cut felling annually.



Biotope/community/vegetation type (group) within the forest district

General Description of

Taxon Taxon Name EndemicLocal

EndemicIUCN

Red List



Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Astragalus huber-morathii Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Micromeria dolichodonta Yes Yes - CR A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Stachys pseudopinardii Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Symphytum longisetum Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Verbascum cymigerum Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum linguifolium Yes Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Bird Larus audouinii NT NT C1Mammal Monachus monachus CR CR A1, B1, C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VU

Kermes Oak(500-1300)

Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Astragalus huber-morathii Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Micromeria dolichodonta Yes Yes - CR A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Sideritis brevidens Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Symphytum longisetum Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Verbascum cymigerum Yes - EN A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VU

Mixed Oak-Maquis(300-800)

Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Astragalus huber-morathii Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Micromeria dolichodonta Yes Yes - CR A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Stachys pseudopinardii Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Symphytum longisetum Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Verbascum cymigerum Yes - EN A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1

Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VU

Broad-leaved Forest

Oak Forest(800-1300)

Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Astragalus huber-morathii Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Scrophularia mersinensis Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Sideritis brevidens Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Symphytum longisetum Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT



Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2

Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Micromeria dolichodonta Yes Yes - CR A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Verbascum cymigerum Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Verbascum linguifolium Yes Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Crucianella sorgerae Yes Yes CR A1, A2Bird Larus audouinii NT NT C1Mammal Monachus monachus CR CR A1, B1, C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT

Lowlan Needle-leaved Forest

Coastal Cypres-Red Pine Forest(0-500)

Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Micromeria dolichodonta Yes Yes - CR A1, A2Plant Ophrys isaura Yes Yes - EN A1, A2Plant Stachys pseudopinardii Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2

Plant Crucianella sorgerae Yes Yes CR A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT

Lowlan Needle-leaved Forest


Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis brevidens Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT



Plant Astragalus albicalycinus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Lathyrus cilicicus Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Ononis basiadnata Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis brevidens Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2

Plant Symphytum longisetum Yes - VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella plicata Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus euryale VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Plant Colchicum imperatoris-friderici Yes - EN A1, A2Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT


Taurus Fir(1600-1900)

Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT



Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NT

Butterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT


Mixed Taurus Fir-Taurus Cedar-Black Pine_Juniper Forests(1600-2000)

Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Mammal Rhinolophus ferrumequinum NT NT C1Mammal Rhinolophus hipposideros LC NT C1Butterfly Apharitis cilissa ENButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VUBird Accipiter gentilis NT

Alpine Grasslands (1800-3300)Plant Sideritis vuralii Yes - VU A1, A2Mammal Myotis emarginatus VU VU A1, C1Butterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTButterfly Melanargia wiskotti Yes VU


MaquisForest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Gülnar. However, they are not a threat to maquis ecosystems as regeneration capacity of maquis ecosystem is very high. Also, fire supports the biodiversity of the maquis ecosystem as long as its intensity and severity is not beyond a certain level.

Red Pine Forest Forest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Gülnar and make their biggest impacts on Red Pine forest ecosystems. However, as fire is part of regeneration process of Red Pine forest ecosystems, as long as the intensity and severity of the fire does not exceed a certain level, it

supports biodiversity of Red Pine ecosystem.

Pest Outbreak: According to figures of last five years pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni, Mediterranean Pine Engraver-Orthotomicus erosus, Six-Toothed Bark Beetle-Ips sexdentatus) in Red Pine Forests of Gülnar Forest Enterprise is around 11,500 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. Most of the pest damage is in Red Pine forests. However, as its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problem for biodiversity in short term.

Climate Change: Global climate models predict a decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature for Mediterranean ecosystems. Besides for Anatolia, it is expected that continentality will expand through northern Mediterranean territories. As a result, habitat suitability for Red Pine will decrease and Red Pine forest may shrink. However, the overall mechanism of the process cannot be predicted and further studies about the impacts of climate change are needed

Black Pine Forest Pest Outbreak: According to figures of last five years pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni) in Black Pine Forests of Gülnar Forest Enterprise is around 1,100 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. However, as its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problem for biodiversity in short term.

Climate Change: Black Pine will be affected by climate change in a similar mechanism with Red Pine.

Taurus Cedar Forest

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Cedar Bark beetle-Orthotomicus tridentatus) in Taurus Cedar Forests of Gulnar Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 3,700 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: Taurus Cedar will be affected by climate change in a similar way as Red Pine and Black Pine

Taurus Fir Forests Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Fir Bark beetle-Pityokteines marketae) in Taurus Fir Forests of Gulnar Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 400 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: As humidity and precipitation are very important for Taurus Fir, it is the most sensitive forest ecosystem to climate

change. According to modeling studies conducted by DKM (2010) its survival is under risk.

Alpine Grassland Climate Change: Alpine grasslands are one of the most sensitive formations to climate change. It is predicted that altitudinal shift to higher elevations will be problem for species restricted to this vegetation belt, as alpine grassland forms the upper boundary of the vegetation.



Threat CategoryEndemism

Species Score*

Number of Forest District Enterprise Species can be found

Population Status

Large Mammal Ursus arctos LC 0.500 193 LowBird Dendrocopos major LC 0.458 182 LowButterfly Melanargia wiskotti VU Endemic 0.524 7 LowPlant Ophrys isaura EN Endemic 0.646 1 Very low

* This score is produced by NCC and Forest Management Planning Department to identify the focal species for each forest district.

Table 2.4: Protected areas, important plant areas, prime butterfly areas, key biodiversity areas, important bird areas, priority biodiversity areas in GULNAR Forest DistrictName of the Area Feature/Status Date Institution Size (he) IUCN Man. CategoryAydıncık Islands Important Bird Area 2004 DD 2,102Gülnar Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 17,571Aydıncık-Ovacık Coast Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 26,459Gülnar Prime Butterfly Area 2011 DKM 10,000Abb. Used in the table: WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature-Turkey, DHKD: Society for the Protection of Nature, DD: Nature Society, DKM: Nature Conservation Centre, GDPNA: General Directorate of Protection of Natural Assets, ASPA: Authority for Specially Protected Areas, GDNCNP: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Park,



Table 3.1.a Current (baseline) loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in GULNAR forest districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)2


biomass3



Basic wood density5



Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat






zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landGülnar 239.0 0.614 0.29 38.9 0.446 0.51 105.4

1. Obtained from standing tree cuttings reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 2. Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.614; Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.757 (TOLUNAY 2010)3. Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.29 Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)

4. Obtained from dead trees and cutting residuals reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 5. For coniferous: 0.446; for deciduous 0.541 (TOLUNAY 2010)6. For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006)

Table 3.1.b. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from fire in GÜLNAR forest district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: Gülnar)


Land use category Sub categories Burned Area Average of AGB Ratio ofCarbon Fraction




FL FL Ground Fire125.03

1.48 0 0.5194.532

Passive Crown Fire281.32

2.52 0 0.51361.878

Active Crown Fire218.80

3.81 0 0.51424.875

Total625.15 881.285





Table 3.1.c. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from pests in GULNAR forest district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district











sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Gülnar 16,700 1.106 0.29 0.51 7,290.93

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all annual biomass (fd = 1) while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 60 ) of the average annual biomass increment(1) Affected areas reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (ha / year); (2) Average above-ground biomass existing on Gülnar Forest Directorate (ton/ha) (AGB = Iv × BCEF1); (3) For coniferous: 0.29; for deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006); (4) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006 Table 4.3); (5) Fd damage ratio was calculated as in portion of mean average carbon loss given in the NIR’s to the carbon in average above ground biomass of relevant forest region. Fd is estimated as 0.60 for Gülnar Forest District. (6) Detailed information about calculation process can be followed in the Annex titled “ BIOMASS LOSS CALCULATIONS”

Table 3.1.d. Total annual decrease in carbon stocks due to fires, pests and illicit logging in GULNAR forest district under baseline scenario (∆CBL)



Table 3.2.a Projected loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in GÜLNAR forest district after the project Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)





Basic wood density



project scenario

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat





Forecast* Table 4.5

zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landGülnar 73.1 0.614 0.29 11.9 0.446 0.51 32.2

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the forecast volume of the removal of fuel wood by local people (which is 192.9 m3 less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.a, the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.3 (Micro-crediting program). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, by providing an alternative source of energy, the project will achieve a 100% reduction in illicit fuel wood withdrawal by at least 1,100 families. Thus, the project scenario is different to the baseline scenario by the figure of 73.1 cubic meters of wood withdrawal in total for removal of whole trees, and 11.9 cubic meters per year for tree parts

EMISSIONS DISPLACEMENT/LEAKAGE:

This activity (Output 2.3) will stop logging of fire-wood by app. 900 families. Does it mean that after the project, the families will do logging in neighboring forest land as compensation?

According to the data from Forest Village Affairs Directorate (FVA) of GDF, solar panel will decrease the fuelwood need per family as 3.75 m3. In total of 5 sites, the illicit logging has an impact of 13,500 m3. According to Table 3.1.a – baseline scenario – total annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gülnar is 277.9 m3. As shown by this figure, share of Gülnar in all 5 sites is 0.02 (277.9/13,500). Consequently, 2 per cent of 1,100 families, i.e., 22 families, will be those located in Gülnar who will benefite from the project. According to FVA data, total amount of annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gülnar is 22 families x 3.75 m3 = 82.5 m3. As calculated in Table 3.2.a, total annual amonut of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Gülnar is 85 m3. Ultimately, the project will fully satisfy the energy needs of the targeted families for domestic water heating by solar panel, thus they will not need to resort to any illicilt fuel wood cutting for water heating anymore. The project will implement monitoring of contractual arrangements: each transaction will be based on a contract between the Fund and the client, stipulate committing of the recipient to refrain from fuel wood cutting. The project will help set up systems for ensuring compliance. Therefore, there is no displacement resulting from the implementation of the restoration project.




CARBON MONITORING




















Table 3.2.b. Projected loss of carbon from fire in GULNAR forest district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: GÜLNAR )


Land use cetegory Sub categories Burned Area Average of AGB Ratio of Carbon Fr. Annual Loss of C

İnitial Reporting Year in Reporting Year A (Ha) Bw Ton/ha R AG to BG CF L=A*Bw*(1+R)*CF

FL FL Ground Fire 250.06 1.48 0 0.51 189.064



Total 500.12 481.546










CARBON MONITORING


















Table 3.2.c. Projected loss of carbon from pests in GÜLNAR forest district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance (pests)



Land-use category

Name of district











sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Gülnar 16,700 1.106 0.29 0.51 2,430.31

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0. 20) of the average annual ground biomass increment.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target fd in 16,700 ha under pest (which is 3 times lower than baseline figure as Table 3.1.c), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.4 (Pest management). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the biomass lost fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 in affected area which is 16,700 ha, compared to the baseline scenario.





CARBON MONITORING

















Table 3.2.d. Total annual loss of carbon to fires, pests and illicit logging in KOYCEGIZ forest district after implementation of project (CPL)

∆CPL=LPfuelwood + LPfires+ LPpests (in tonnes C yr-1)2,944.06 [Note: This is Equation 2.11 as per IPCC LULUCF 2006 Guidelines]







Land-use category

District name Area targeted by the project activity





Average annual


ground




result of project activity

Initial land use1 Land use during reporting year (ha)

(tonnes dm [tonnes bg dm (tonnes dm [tonnes C(tonnes C yr-1)

ha-1 yr-1) (tonne ag dm)-1] ha-1 yr-1) (tonne dm)-1]As set by project

designTables zero (0) or

GTOTAL = GW * (1+R)

0.5 or

ΔCPG = A * GTOTAL * CF

4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 for reforestation or other coefficients as defined by national

scientists *

A1 GW2 R3 GTOTAL

CF4

∆CPG


between 10-15%

Forest with crown-cover > 15%a Gülnar 600 0.161 0.29 0.208 0.51 63.50



Gülnar 1,000 0.603 0,29 0.778 0.51 397

Gülnar 240 6.640 0.29 8.566 0.51 1,048.5

Total sequestration 1509* Explanation for the origin of coefficients:1-1/5 of total projected areas for rehabilitation (3,000/6 = 600 ha), for enrichment and liberation thinning (5,000/5= 1,000 ha)2- a) 8/11 of mean average annual above-ground biomass growth for the relevant district, b) 6/11 of above ground biomass growth, c) Gw differences between Industrial plantation and Age Classes Method (Explanation is given in the annex titled “ ENHANCEMENT of CARBON STOCK” ( Mean average AGB increment of Gülnar Forest District is 1,106 ton/ha/year.)3- Root to shoot ratio R= 0.29 (AFOLU 2006)4- 0.51 for coniferous; 0.48 for deciduous (IPCC 2006)




CARBON MONITORING












Pilot site 5: Pos Forest District DirectorateSection 1. General information

Name of the forest district POS* Average age of stands 80Size of the district, ha 120,052.5 % of degraded forests out of the total area of


Area of forests within the district, ha 65,554.5 Human population density within the district, persons/ha

13,568* / 120,052.5 = 0.11*Rural population TUIK 2011 (www.tuik.gov.tr)




Decidious / Coniferous:0.0025 % as areal; 0.0017 as growing stock



YES. 92.5 ha approximately. There is 925.5 ha regeneration area belonging to Pinus brutia in the region. 1/10 of this area is regenerated by clear-cut felling annually.




General Description of Taxon

Taxon Name Endemic Local Endemic

IUCN Red List

Regional/National Red List

Criteria

Maquis Kermes Oak(800-1300)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus cappadocica Yes _ NT A2Plant Hedysarum antitauricum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hyacinthella lazulina Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca EN

Mixed Needle-leaved-Maquis

Kermes Oak-Juniper(800-1500)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2

Plant Asphodeline cilicica Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus cappadocica Yes _ NT A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Hedysarum antitauricum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hyacinthella lazulina Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Trigonella rhytidocarpa Yes _ NT A2Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca EN

Broad-leaved Forest

Oak Forests(800-1600)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus cappadocica Yes _ NT A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Hedysarum antitauricum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2

Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hyacinthella lazulina Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Trigonella rhytidocarpa Yes _ NT A2Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca EN



Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Asphodeline cilicica Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Centaurea ptosimopapoides Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus cappadocica Yes _ NT A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Hedysarum antitauricum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hyacinthella lazulina Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2

Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Trigonella rhytidocarpa Yes _ NT A2Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTButterfly Scolitantides orion NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca EN



Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Asphodeline cilicica Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Centaurea ptosimopapoides Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ebenus cappadocica Yes _ NT A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Hedysarum antitauricum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hyacinthella lazulina Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2

Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Trigonella rhytidocarpa Yes _ NT A2Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Melanargia titea wiskotti Yes VUButterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca ENBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Dryocopus martius NT


Taurus Fir(1600-1900)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Asphodeline cilicica Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Asphodeline prismatocarpa Yes _ VU A1Plant Ballota macrodonta Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea antitauri Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Delphinium nydeggeri Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Draba acaulis Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ferula drudeana Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Ferula longipedunculata Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Galium aladaghense Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Galium sieheanum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Gnaphalium leucopilinum Yes _ NT A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2

Plant Lamium eriocephalum ssp. eriocephalum Yes _ CD B2Plant Nepeta aristata Yes _ NT A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Paracaryum reuteri Yes _ NT A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Sideritis phlomoides Yes _ NT A2Plant Thesium cilicicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Veronica tauricola Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. cilicica Yes _ EN B1, B2Bird Tetraogallus caspius LC VU B1, C1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Pyrgus aladaghensis Yes _ DD A2, A4, C1Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca ENBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Dryocopus martius NT



Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Alyssum trapeziforme Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Asphodeline prismatocarpa Yes _ VU A1Plant Ballota macrodonta Yes _ VU A1, A2

Plant Centaurea antitauri Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Delphinium nydeggeri Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Draba acaulis Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ferula drudeana Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Ferula longipedunculata Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Galium aladaghense Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Galium sieheanum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Gnaphalium leucopilinum Yes _ NT A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hieracium argaeum Yes _ EN A1Plant Lamium eriocephalum ssp. eriocephalum Yes _ CD B2Plant Nepeta aristata Yes _ NT A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Paracaryum reuteri Yes _ NT A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Sideritis phlomoides Yes _ NT A2Plant Thesium cilicicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Veronica tauricola Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. cilicica Yes _ EN B1, B2Bird Tetraogallus caspius LC VU B1, C1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Pyrgus aladaghensis Yes _ DD A2, A4, C1

Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca ENBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Dryocopus martius NT


Mixed Taurus Fir-Taurus Cedar-Black Pine-Juniper Forests(1600-2000)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Alyssum trapeziforme Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Asphodeline prismatocarpa Yes _ VU A1Plant Ballota macrodonta Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea antitauri Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Delphinium nydeggeri Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Draba acaulis Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ferula drudeana Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Ferula longipedunculata Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Galium aladaghense Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Galium sieheanum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Gnaphalium leucopilinum Yes _ NT A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hieracium argaeum Yes _ EN A1Plant Lamium eriocephalum ssp. eriocephalum Yes _ CD B2Plant Nepeta aristata Yes _ NT A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Paracaryum reuteri Yes _ NT A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Sideritis phlomoides Yes _ NT A2

Plant Thesium cilicicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Veronica tauricola Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. cilicica Yes _ EN B1, B2Bird Tetraogallus caspius LC VU B1, C1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Pyrgus aladaghensis Yes _ DD A2, A4, C1Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca ENBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Dryocopus martius NT



Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2Plant Alyssum caespitosum Yes _ NT A2Plant Alyssum trapeziforme Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Asphodeline prismatocarpa Yes _ VU A1Plant Ballota macrodonta Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea antitauri Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cousinia cirsioides Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Delphinium nydeggeri Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Draba acaulis Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ferula drudeana Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Ferula longipedunculata Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2

Plant Galium aladaghense Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Galium sieheanum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Gnaphalium leucopilinum Yes _ NT A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hieracium argaeum Yes _ EN A1Plant Lamium eriocephalum ssp. eriocephalum Yes _ CD B2Plant Nepeta aristata Yes _ NT A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Onosma cappadocicum Yes _ CD A2Plant Paracaryum reuteri Yes _ NT A2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sedum ince Yes _ _ A2Plant Sideritis phlomoides Yes _ NT A2Plant Thesium cilicicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Veronica tauricola Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. cilicica Yes _ EN B1, B2Bird Tetraogallus caspius LC VU B1, C1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Felis chaus LC (EN) B1, C1Mammal Lutra lutra NT _ C1Amphibian Salamandra infraimmaculata LC NT B2, C1Fish Barbatula seyhanensis Yes VU EN A1, A2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Pyrgus aladaghensis Yes _ DD A2, A4, C1Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NTBird Accipiter gentilis NTBird Aquila heliaca ENBird Dendrocopos leucotos VUBird Dryocopus martius NT

Alpine Grassland (1800-3300)

Plant Achillea spinulifolia Yes _ CD A2

Plant Alchemilla rivularis Yes Yes _ DD A2Plant Alyssum trapeziforme Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Asphodeline prismatocarpa Yes _ VU A1Plant Astragalus stridii Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ballota macrodonta Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea antitauri Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Centaurea chrysantha Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Cirsium ellenbergii Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Crocus sieheanus Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Dianthus goerkii Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Draba acaulis Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Ferula longipedunculata Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Ferulago pachyloba Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Galium aladaghense Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Galium sieheanum Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Gnaphalium leucopilinum Yes _ NT A2Plant Hesperis campicarpa Yes _ CD A2Plant Hieracium argaeum Yes _ EN A1Plant Hypericum crenulatum Yes _ CD A2Plant Isatis frigida Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Lamium eriocephalum ssp. eriocephalum Yes _ CD B2Plant Lamium garganicum ssp. pulchrum Yes _ NT B2Plant Nepeta aristata Yes _ NT A2Plant Omphalodes luciliae ssp. cilicica Yes _ NT B2Plant Paracaryum reuteri Yes _ NT A2Plant Potentilla aladaghensis Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Potentilla pulvinaris ssp. argentea Yes _ VU B1, B2Plant Potentilla pulvinaris ssp. pulvinaris Yes _ EN B1, B2Plant Rosularia sempervivum ssp. glaucophylla Yes _ EN B1Plant Salvia eriophora Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Sideritis phlomoides Yes _ NT A2Plant Thesium cilicicum Yes _ NT A2Plant Thlaspi crassum Yes Yes _ EN A1, A2Plant Thlaspi rosulare Yes _ CR A1, A2Plant Thurya capitata Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Trigonella kotschyi Yes _ VU A1Plant Valeriana bolkarica Yes _ VU A1, A2Plant Veronica kotschyana Yes _ NT A2

Plant Veronica tauricola Yes Yes _ CD A2Plant Viola sandrasea ssp. cilicica Yes _ EN B1, B2Bird Tetraogallus caspius LC VU B1, C1Bird Gypaetus barbatus LC VU B1, C1Bird Neophron percnopterus LC EN B1, C1Mammal Capra aegagrus VU _ A1, C1Mammal Chionomys nivalis NT LC B2, C1Butterfly Parnassius apollo VU LC A1Butterfly Pyrgus aladaghensis Yes _ DD A2, A4, C1Butterfly Lycaena ottomana VU VUButterfly Zegris eupheme NT


Kermes OakForest Fire: Forest fires are critical in Pos. However, they are not a threat to maquis ecosystems as regeneration capacity of maquis ecosystem is very high. Also, fire supports the biodiversity of the maquis ecosystem as long as its intensity and severity is not beyond a certain level.

Red Pine Forest Forest Fire: Forest fires are significant in Pos and make their biggest impacts on Red Pine forest ecosystems. However, as fire is part of regeneration process of Red Pine forest ecosystems, as long as the intensity and severity of the fire does not exceed a certain level, it supports biodiversity of Red Pine ecosystem.

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni, Mediterranean Pine Engraver-Orthotomicus erosus, Resin moth-Dioryctria sylvestrella) in Red Pine Forests of Pos Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 1,500 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. Most of this damage has taken place in Red Pine forests. However, as its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problems for biodiversity in the short term.

Climate Change: Global climate models predict a decrease in precipitation and increase in temperature for Mediterranean ecosystems. Besides for Anatolia, it is expected that continentality will expand through northern Mediterranean territories. As a result, habitat suitability for Red Pine will decrease and Red Pine forest may shrink. However, the overall mechanism of the process cannot be

predicted and further studies about the impacts of climate change are needed.

Black Pine Forest Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Pine Processionary Moth-Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni) in Black Pine Forests of Pos Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 200 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6. However, as its main impact is before the vegetation period and trees can survive if it is not too severe, it does not create very important problems for biodiversity in the short term.

Climate Change: Black Pine will be affected by climate change in a similar way as Red Pine.

Taurus Cedar Forest

Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Cedar Bark beetle-Orthotomicus tridentatus) in Taurus Cedar Forests of Pos Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 50 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: Taurus Cedar will be affected by climate change in a similar mechanism with Red Pine and Black Pine

Taurus Fir Forests Pest Outbreak: Pest damage (Fir Bark beetle-Pityokteines marketae) in Taurus Fir Forests of Pos Forest Enterprise over the last five years has averaged around 200 ha with a fraction of biomass lost in disturbance (fd) equalent to 0.6.

Climate Change: As humidity and precipitation are very important for Taurus Fir, it is the most sensitive forest ecosystem to climate change. According to modeling studies conducted by DKM (2010) its survival is under risk.

Alpine Grassland Climate Change: Alpine grasslands are one of the most sensitive formations to climate change. It is predicted that altitudinal shift to higher elevations will be problematic for species restricted to this vegetation belt, as alpine grassland forms the upper boundary of the vegetation.



Threat CategoryEndemism

Species Score*

Number of Forest District Enterprise Species can be found (out of 249)

Population Status

Large Mammal Canis lupus LC 0.458 208 Low

Bird Dendrocopos leucotos VU 0.565 121 LowBird Dryocopus martius NT 0.530 107 LowPlant Centaurea ptosimopappoides CR Endemic 0.625 3 Very low

* This score is produced by NCC and Forest Management Planning Department to identify the focal species for each forest district.

Table 2.4: Protected areas, important plant areas, prime butterfly areas, key biodiversity areas, important bird areas, priority biodiversity areas in POS Forest District

Name of the Area Feature/Status Date Institution Size (he) IUCN Man. CategoryAladağlar Important Plant Area 2005 WWF-Turkey /DHKD 203,656Aladağlar Important Bird Area 2004 DD 215,400Aladağlar Key Biodiversity Area 2006 DD 243,999Aladağlar Prime Butterfly Area 2011 DKM 10,000Aladağlar Forests Anatolian Diagonal Systematic Conservation Planning (Gap Analysis) 2010 DKM 50,000Aladağlar Mountain Anatolian Diagonal Systematic Conservation Planning (Gap Analysis 2010 DKM 80,000Aladağlar National Park 1995 GDNCNP 54,524 2Abb. Used in the table: WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature-Turkey, DHKD: Society for the Protection of Nature, DD: Nature Society, DKM: Nature Conservation Centre, GDPNA: General Directorate of Protection of Natural Assets, ASPA: Authority for Specially Protected Areas, GDNCNP: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Park,



Table 3.1.a Current (baseline) loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in POS forest districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)2


biomass3



Basic wood density5



Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat






zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landPos 4,096 0.614 0.29 666.8 0.446 0.51 1,806.3

7) Obtained from standing tree cuttings reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (m3 / year) 8) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.614; Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.757 (TOLUNAY 2010)9) Fuel wood from coniferous: 0.29 Fuel wood from deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)10) Obtained from tree parts and cutting residuals reported by GDF’s annual statistics for 5 years average (m3 / year). It was estimated 16% of whole trees removal. 11) For coniferous: 0.446; for deciduous 0.541 (TOLUNAY 2010)12) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006)

Table 3.1.b. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from fire in POS forest district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: POS )




İnitial Reporting Year in Reporting Year1 A (Ha)2Bw Ton dry







Table 3.1.c. Current (baseline) loss of carbon from pests in POS forest district Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district










National statistics or international data Table 4.9

zero (0) or 0.5 or LBpests = A * BW * (1+R) * CF * fd5Table 4.4 Table 4.3

sourcesApests

1 BW2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Pos 1,950 1.286 0.29 0.51 989.89


13) Affected areas reported by local managerial unit for 5 years average (ha / year) 14) Average bove-ground biomass existing on the side (ton/ha) (AGB = Iv × BCEF1)15) For coniferous: 0.29; for deciduous: 0.24 (IPCC 2006)16) For deciduous: 0.51; for deciduous: 0.48 (IPCC 2006 Table 4.3)17) Fd damage ratio was calculated as in portion of mean average carbon loss given in the NIR’s to the carbon in average above ground biomass of relevant forest region. Fd is calculated

as 0.60 for Pos Forest District.18) Detailed information about calculation process can be followed in the Annex titled “ BIOMASS LOSS CALCULATIONS”

Table 3.1.d. Total annual decrease in carbon stocks due to fires, pests and illicit logging in POS forest district under baseline scenario (∆CBL)



Table 3.2.a Projected loss of carbon from illicit logging for fuel in POS forest district after the project Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district






bark)





Basic wood density



project scenario

Initial land use

Land use after the

impact of threat





Forecast* Table 4.5

zero (0) or


4.14




Forest land Forest landPos 1,251.3 0.614 0.29 203.7 0.446 0.51 551.8

* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the forecast volume of the removal of fuel wood by local people (which is 3,307.8 m3 less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.a, the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.3 (Micro-crediting program). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, by providing an alternative source of energy, the project will achieve a 100% reduction in illicit fuel wood withdrawal by at least 1,100 families. Thus, the project scenario is different to the baseline scenario by the figure of 1,251.3 cubic meters of wood withdrawal in total for removal of whole trees, and 203.7 cubic meters per year for tree parts



According to the data from Forest Village Affairs Directorate (FVA) of GDF, solar panel will decrease the fuelwood need per family as 3.75 m3. In total of 5 sites, the illicit logging has an impact of 13,500 m3. According to Table 3.1.a – baseline scenario – total annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Pos is 4,762.8 m3. As shown by this figure, share of Pos in all 5 sites is 0.35 (4762.8/13,500). Consequently, 35 per cent of 1,100 families, i.e., 388 families, will be those located in Pos who will benefit from the project. According to FVA data, total amount of annual volume of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Pos is 388 families x 3.75 m3 = 1,455 m3. As calculated in Table 3.2.a, total annual amonut of fuelwood removal of whole trees and tree parts in Pos is 1,455 m3. Ultimately, the project will fully satisfy the energy needs of the targeted families for domestic water heating by solar panel, thus they will not need to resort to any illicilt fuel wood cutting for water heating anymore. The project will implement monitoring of contractual arrangements: each transaction will be based on a contract between the Fund and the client, stipulate committing of the recipient to refrain from fuel wood cutting. The project will help set up systems for ensuring compliance. Therefore, there is no displacement resulting from the implementation of the restoration project.




CARBON MONITORING

State which site-based methods will be used to measure, verify and report on GHG emissions before after completion of Output 2.3 (see Annex K for further details on MRV and carbon measurement protocols)


















Table 3.2.b. Projected loss of carbon from fire in POS forest district



Category code 3B1a

Sheet 4 of 4 (FIRE for Disrict: POS )




İnitial Reporting Year in Reporting Year1 A (Ha)2Bw Ton dry


FL FL Ground Fire 5.29 1.48 0 0.51 3.999



Total 10.58 10.185



2. The statistics about annual area burnt under different types of fire is based on 15 years average of fire statistics of related Forest Enterprise Directorate3. For this case, the organic content of the other below ground biomass pools is ignored for conservatism, because underground biomass remains still alive in the areas, especially covering maquis, after fire in the site. However, litter, dead wood and above ground biomass (Epigeous biomass) are taken into account.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target area under fires (which is 2.64 ha less than the baseline level from Table 3.1.b), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.1 (Fire avoidance system). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the size of area burnt annually by app. 2.64 ha (in total 140.4 ha for 5 pilot sites) compared to the baseline scenario. . In addition, the proposed activities are forecast that 25% of the active and passive (intermittent) crown fires is transformed into surface fires and additional 25% is totally eliminated through fuel management including thinning, tending and mastication, and through effective use of the resources.






CARBON MONITORING


















Table 3.2.c. Projected loss of carbon from pests in POS districtSector Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use



Land-use category

Name of district

Area affected by pests Average above-ground biomass of

areas affected









sourcesTable 4.9


Apests1 BW

2 R3 CF4 LBpests

FL FL Pos 1,950 1.286 0.29 0.51 329.96

Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will remove all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0. 20) of the average annual ground biomass increment.* The forecast is based on the following assumptions and calculations: In order to achieve the target fd in 1,950 ha under pest (which is 3 times lower than baseline figure as Table 3.1.c), the project will implement the activities, specified in Output 2.4 (Pest management). Further details on the activities are provided in Section B.2 (Incremental cost reasoning). Conservatively, the proposed activities are forecast to reduce the biomass lost fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 in affected area which is 1,950 ha, compared to the baseline scenario.





CARBON MONITORING

















Table 3.2.d. Total annual loss of carbon to fires, pests and illicit logging in POS forest district after implementation of project (CPL)








Land-use category District name






Average annual





result of project

ground activity



(tonnes C yr-1)ha-1 yr-1) (tonne ag dm)-1] ha-1 yr-1) (tonne dm)-1]


Tables zero (0) or

GTOTAL = GW * (1+R)

0.5 or

ΔCPG = A * GTOTAL * CF4.9, 4.10 and 4.12

for reforestation or other coefficients as defined by national

scientists *

A1 GW2 R3 GTOTAL

CF4

∆CPG


between 10-15%


Pos 600 0.187 0.29 0.241 0.51 73.84



Pos1,000 0.700 0.29 0.903 0.51 460.5

Forest area managed as Age Classes Method

Forest area managed as Industrial plantationc Pos 240 6.078 0.29 7.841 0.51 959.7

Total sequestration 1,494.04* Explanation for the origin of coefficients:1-1/5 of total projected areas for rehabilitation (3000/6 = 600 ha), for enrichment and liberation thinning (5,000/5= 1,000 ha)2- a) 8/11 of mean average annual above-ground biomass growth for the relevant district, b) 6/11 of above ground biomass growth, c) Gw differences between Industrial plantation and Age Classes Method (Explanation is given in the annex titled “ ENHANCEMENT of CARBON STOCK” ( Mean average AGB increment of Pos Forest District is 1,283 ton/ha/year.)3- Root to shoot ratio R= 0.29 (AFOLU 2006)4- 0.51 for coniferous; 0.48 for deciduous (IPCC 2006)




CARBON MONITORING




